Northern Ireland Assembly, 9 March 2026

364 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

On Saturday, I had the privilege of attending a hugely successful fundraiser in Dunloy in support of Noah's Story, a charity founded in memory of two-year-old Noah McAleese. Noah was a beautiful little boy whose life was tragically cut short in November 2022. Since then, Noah's family have shown extraordinary courage in transforming their grief into a mission that now supports other families across the North facing similar circumstances and heartbreak. Leaning on their own experience, Noah's parents, Corrina and Johnny, made a commitment that no family should face the worst moments of their lives without dignity, privacy and compassionate care and support. Out of that commitment came Noah's Story, a charity dedicated to improving how our health system here cares for families who experience sudden bereavement by creating and maintaining dedicated bereavement spaces in hospitals across the North. Those "Infinity Rooms" are named as such because of Noah's love of the 'Toy Story' movie. The first Infinity Room was opened just a few months ago in November 2025 in the Causeway Hospital. Speaking back in November, Noah's mother Corrina said:

"We appreciate when someone loses a loved one, there is very little that can truly ease that pain. But what we can do is create spaces that provide a softer landing in those immediate, devastating moments. And that is how the Infinity Room was created."

When you see first-hand the thought, compassion and determination of Corrina and Johnny, their wider family and the local community that has gone into Noah's Story, you understand that it is more than just a charity. It is a legacy of love and of the determination that, despite their own tragic loss, something deeply meaningful can be built for others. Saturday's fundraiser at Dunloy GAA grounds, which I attended, was a testament to how the local and wider North Antrim community has been touched by Noah's Story and the work of Johnny and Corrina.

I conclude my remarks by paying tribute here in Stormont to Corrina and Johnny, to their wider family, to everyone who continues to support that remarkable charity and to their resilience and determination in ensuring that Noah's memory lives on in a way that helps countless others.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The weekend marked the 17th anniversary of the brutal murder of two soldiers at Massereene Barracks: Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar. As it did then, the community stood in solidarity at the weekend, both on Saturday at an event to mark the anniversary and again yesterday at the site of the brutal murders that took place 17 years ago. I was reminded yesterday, when the clergyman spoke at the rededication of the memorial, of how the community came together 17 years ago and has done since over the barbaric nature of the brutal murder of those two young men that night. It was a solemn occasion then, and it is a solemn occasion now. All of us in the area who drive past that site daily are reminded of it. Two young men at the prime of their lives were cut down and brutally murdered, claimed by the then Real IRA. I do not care whether it was the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA or just the IRA; they are all pigs of the one sow. I am sure that that term is familiar to some in the Chamber. It may be offensive to some, but suck it up. That is what they were, and it was brutal, barbaric, unnecessary and evil murder carried out in the name of Irish republicanism.

It is great that we were fit to stand in prayerful peace yesterday to mark that occasion, to remember those young men and to stand with former colleagues of theirs and former and serving soldiers from different regiments who had made their way across from England to mark the occasion. Bikers from the Legion were also there to mark the occasion. Whatever history has taught us, many of us will never forget what happened to the people in our Province.

Often forgotten are the first responders from the police, the fire service and the Ambulance Service and the hospital staff who witnessed some of those horrific scenes. I know one of the first responders who was there that night and of the effect that that has had on that individual ever since. There is stuff that those people can never unsee and can never recover from, and I hope that, some day, everyone can have peace without those constant reminders.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I congratulate both the women's and men's Irish hockey teams on their qualification for the World Cup, which will take place in the Low Countries in August. The men, including a considerable Ulster contingent, qualified a couple of days ago with a comfortable win over Wales and then won their qualifying tournament in Chile by beating France 2-1 yesterday. It is worth noting, on the day after International Women's Day, that hockey is the second most played sport in the world, largely because it is widely played by women; in fact, it is the largest majority-female participation sport in Northern Ireland. The women's team secured qualification in a shoot-out against Japan. That is the third consecutive qualification for the World Cup, and, of course, we still remember the 2018 tournament, in which the team reached the final.

Nevertheless, it brings up an issue of concern. An interesting aspect of the team that reached the final in 2018 was that there were members from each of the six counties in Northern Ireland. The concern is that we will not be able to repeat that because of a lack of facilities; in fact, one county — Fermanagh — does not have a functional hockey pitch now. Enniskillen Hockey Club has to play its home games in County Tyrone. The Derry and Strabane council area has just one pitch, and, due to floodlighting restrictions, the local club cannot run as many teams as it would wish to. Even in the greater Belfast area, we are basing facilities on demand, but there cannot be demand for pitches that do not exist.

This weekend has reinforced that hockey is an Irish success story with significant Ulster input. On that note, I congratulate Hockey Ireland and Ulster Hockey on their tremendous work and the successes that we see with both teams. We must ensure that we build on the success, not put it at risk. Let us commit to action to make sure that that success can continue.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Since this mandate resumed, the Minister of Justice has lectured many of the parties here about attempts to interfere in PSNI operational matters. I particularly remember one spicy and spiky moment between my friend opposite and the Minister on that issue. It is clear, however, that the Justice Minister, as leader of the Alliance Party, is using her position of privilege to interfere in PSNI decision-making. In early February, the Ulster Unionist Party press and policy team used the PSNI logo to accompany a press release about a data release from the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) that contained police officers' names. Using the PSNI logo is something that many parties do, including, I have to say, the Alliance Party. The logo should not have been used, and it was taken down at the request of the police.

Although it was the PSNI that requested that the logo be taken down, that request came on the back of the Justice Minister interfering in police operational decision-making through a series of WhatsApp messages discovered via a freedom of information request. Those WhatsApp messages raise a number of points. First, the Minister had said that the Courts and Tribunals Service data release was not an issue, yet she described the data release as a problem to the police, clearly contradicting what she had told this Chamber. The Minister also tried to use the police to stifle scrutiny, as the press release had been critical of her and her Department. Secondly, she used the exchange as an attempt to undermine the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party's relationship with the police through derogatory comments. Lastly, the Minister tried to influence the police by implying that the police should ask us to take down the logo and suggesting that the PSNI should challenge the Ulster Unionist Party on social media. That is clear political interference in the operational activities of the PSNI, and it undermines the Justice Minister's credibility.

The word "hypocrisy" is used a lot: on this issue, it is apt. The issue is also raised of why the Justice Minister is using a non-secure phone app to discuss operational matters. If she is doing that for issues to do with a critical press release, for what else is she using WhatsApp? There now needs to be an audit of the Minister's messages to ensure that sensitive information is not being sent via insecure means.

It is a clear attempt to stifle scrutiny and critical analysis, and we should all be concerned that the Minister is doing that through WhatsApp messages sent directly to the police.

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

I will speak about a subject that is of the utmost urgency for households, workers and families across the North, and that is the price of energy.

Donald Trump and the state of Israel decided to bomb Iran from the sky. I am not here to explain why that is a bad, illegal and idiotic thing to do; I am here to say, however, that members of the public, two thirds of whom in the region use home heating oil as their domestic fuel, already face severe pressure on their budgets. In the past week alone, the price of home heating oil has almost doubled, but, according to the aggregation done by the Consumer Council and the data available on websites such as BoilerJuice, the cost of filling an oil tank will probably more than double very soon. That is putting real pressure on households. The home heating oil market here is utterly unregulated. Households already face real squeezes after years of inflation and, in many cases, slower than necessary pay rises.

What to do about it? The Executive need to coordinate a response and stand up for hard-pressed households. I am not saying that the Executive can control what happens in the Middle East — clearly, they cannot — but there are short-term, medium-term and long-term actions that need to be taken.

First, we call on the Executive at least to explore a response that helps the hardest-pressed households with energy costs. Thankfully, we are out of the worst of winter, but people still need to heat their homes, and the most vulnerable will face a squeeze. We have therefore asked for some kind of discretionary support. It could be along the lines of previous discretionary support schemes. For example, eligibility could be along the same lines as for those who get rate relief or pension credit. The Executive need to respond, however, because we have the lowest household disposable income in the UK. We also have the biggest exposure to energy shocks, because of our reliance on unregulated home heating oil.

Secondly, we need to start thinking about how and when we regulate home heating oil. There are lots of great family-owned businesses across Northern Ireland that provide home heating oil, and I am not casting aspersions on them, but we know that the market is unregulated. Lots of people literally stick their garden broom into their oil tank to test how much oil they have. We need the market to be properly regulated.

Lastly, we need progress from the Economy Minister on an energy transition that means that we are less reliant on unstable parts of the world for fossil fuels. That is completely critical, but we have not had it yet from the Economy Minister or the Finance Minister. There have been warm words and statements about what should happen. but we need action. Not to put too fine a point on it, Sinn Féin TDs call for action from the Irish Government south of the border, where there is proportionately less reliance on home heating oil than in the North. Let us see the Executive act. They got additional money from London last week. They cannot fix all the problems, but they can take some action. At the minute, nothing is happening, and we need support.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The tragic loss of another woman's life in Enniskillen is another horrific reminder that we still have a long way to go in ending the scourge that is violence against women and girls in our society. Whether on our streets, in our communities or in our homes, women deserve to feel safe and be safe. I truly believe that the epidemic of misogyny that exists in our society can be stopped if all of us, across the Chamber, the Executive and society, work together. By working together and implementing the strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls, we can focus on prevention, continue to support women's organisations, empower our local communities and stop the violence before it starts.

My heart goes out to the family, friends and community of the young woman who lost her life at the weekend. The impact of such a loss is simply unimaginable and will, no doubt, have a lasting impact on the people of Fermanagh. Together, we must unite, say that enough is enough and end violence against women and girls in our society.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Last week, Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy claimed that there is not:

"an instance where bombing a country ended up resulting in a better situation."

I ask the House just to let that sink in. Mr Carthy appears to have forgotten which party he represents. In making that statement, he inadvertently exposes the hypocrisy at the heart of Sinn Féin. Through his lapse of memory, Mr Carthy highlights the folly of the IRA's bombing campaign across Northern Ireland and mainland Great Britain.

There was certainly no betterment from the Narrow Water bombing, in which 18 British soldiers were so callously murdered by the IRA, nor from the Corry Square police station mortar attack in Newry, when nine RUC officers were murdered and many others injured. No better situation emerged from the rubble of the countless town-centre bombs planted and detonated by the IRA during the Troubles, including attacks in Markethill and on the Glenanne army base. There was certainly no betterment for the families who lost loved ones to under-car booby-trap bombs planted to murder people as they left their home for an honest day's work or returned to their vehicle at the end of it. I think especially of the late Charles Armstrong, who was murdered in such a fashion as he left a meeting of Armagh City and District Council at the Palace in Armagh city. When I served as lord mayor, I regularly told his story as I hosted guests in the room that is named in his memory. There was no betterment.

Mr Carthy is correct in one respect: far from bringing improvement, those acts were cruel and bloodthirsty atrocities. They tore holes in families and communities, and the pain and trauma remain decades later. The First Minister, in fact, would do well to endorse her colleague's words, instead of repeating the tired claim that there was "no alternative" to IRA violence. A far more honest assessment would simply be this: there was no justification for IRA bombing.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Last week, I raised the issue of the real impact that the sharp rise in energy prices is having on households across Northern Ireland. I also raised the issue of the lack of regulation of heating oil. Over the past number of days, those concerns have only grown.

For many families here, energy prices affect practically every bill that lands on their kitchen table, from the cost of filling the oil tank so that they can heat their home and the cost of filling their car to get to work to the increased food prices for the weekly shop. We hear people's concerns: they are working hard, yet they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

I again call for the Department of the Economy and the Department for Communities to work together urgently to engage with the UK Government to examine what support can be provided for households if prices continue to rise. We have seen support schemes during periods of extreme energy volatility before, and, as energy prices continue to rise, we need to know what protections will be in place for the most vulnerable and for working families that are already under pressure.

We are particularly exposed on this island due to our continued reliance on oil and gas. We cannot control global conflicts or geopolitical shocks, but people here should not pay the price for wars elsewhere. We can control our exposure to those factors. Today, only 43% of our electricity is generated from renewable sources, and that must increase quickly. The cost of transition is now being felt directly in people's pockets. In Norway, 95% of the electricity is generated from renewable sources, and the people there pay significantly less for energy — about half the price that we pay.

We live on an island in the Atlantic Ocean with enormous natural energy resources, and we should use them to produce our own energy to lower the bills and protect households from global shocks. That means moving at pace. It means that all of us in the Chamber should unite behind the Executive and the Ministers to bring about change at pace and work with the Irish Government to deliver energy security for everybody here, North and South. It is about two things: protecting people and their energy bills right now and building an energy system that protects them in the long term. Families in Northern Ireland deserve to know that the Assembly has their backs and that we are focused on delivering for them.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I rise to welcome the announcement by Sinn Féin's Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, that postgraduate loans will increase by 54%, from £6,500 up to £10,000. It is one of the myriad of schemes and proposals that have been brought forward by the Minister, which include increased student provision, including articulation routes; increased access through our FE colleges to further and higher education; and increased student maintenance loans, which have already increased by 20%. In addition, our student fees remain at half the level of those in England.

The Minister is committed to enhancing further and higher education provision across the spectrum here in the North. The SKILL UP programme allows people to upskill, reskill and diversify their skills into particular areas. For example, when I stepped into my role as a member of the Economy Committee, I was not sure about productivity — it was something that I had less experience with. The courses allowed me to upskill in that specific area, and, as anyone who sits on the Economy Committee will know, I am now very passionate about productivity, I know a lot about it, and I can work with industry experts on it.

I experienced life as a postgraduate student when I trained as a primary-school teacher. I was very lucky to have that opportunity: I went straight from school into my undergraduate course, and from there I then went straight into a postgraduate course. I am conscious that many of the people who did the course with me did not have the same opportunity and, at huge financial risk, left full-time employment to be able to do so. When we talk about skills and opportunities, we look at the skills gaps and vacancies in teaching, social work, the healthcare professions and the legal profession. There are opportunities. The Minister's position will allow people to reskill and upskill, and it will take away a huge element of the financial burden that prevents people from going onto those courses and prevents highly skilled people from taking on those opportunities to address the skills gaps in our economy and improve their own circumstances.

I very much welcome the Minister's move. I am sure that it has been welcomed across the House. It has been most important to see the welcome it has received from students. The NUS released a strong statement commending it, and I praise the Minister for her work in this area and across the board to enhance the experience of and opportunities for students in the North.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

This week, we will mark European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. Any Member who took the time to be in the Senate Chamber in the past two hours heard at first hand the carnage, hurt and destruction that terrorism has wreaked on so many lives in Northern Ireland and further afield. Regardless of paramilitary affiliation, terrorism has caused a stain on our society and broken the heart of many families. It is a day to remember those whose lives were cruelly taken by acts of terror and to reflect on the duty that we share to support innocent victims and stand firmly against those who seek to impose their will through violence.

Terrorism leaves a trail of destruction. For my constituency, today's date carries particular, solemn significance. Seventeen years ago, on 9 March 2009, Constable Stephen Carroll was murdered by republican terrorists whilst responding to an emergency call in Lurgan. Constable Carroll served in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, carrying on his proud legacy of service with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He was a dedicated officer and a husband and father. He put on the uniform to protect the public and uphold the rule of law. Instead of returning home to his family that evening, he was brutally taken by those who sought to drag Northern Ireland back to darker days.

I remember that killing, as do so many people of my age: a constable — a police officer — who had served so well, taken in the prime of his life. It shocked the community and was a stark reminder that those who are intent on carrying out political violence still exist in Northern Ireland.

Today, in my constituency, we remember another local man who lost his life while serving others. Lance Corporal Stephen McKee, from Banbridge, a soldier with the First Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, was killed in Afghanistan on 9 March 2011. Like Constable Carroll, he was serving with courage and dedication when his life was taken by cowardly terrorists.

Both men served others, both men represented the best of our community and both their families paid the highest price. As we mark the day of remembrance, we must honour the memory of all victims of terrorism.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Tá Seachtain na Gaeilge 2026 faoi lán seoil. Is féile iontach í seo atá ag dul ó neart go neart. Tá na mílte imeachtaí ag tarlú ar fud na hÉireann. Tá rudaí ar siúl do gach aon duine: foghlaimeoirí, daoine gan Ghaeilge agus daoine óga. Is léiriú í ar fhás agus ar fhorbairt na Gaeilge. Tá níos mó daoine á labhairt, tá níos mó daoine á foghlaim, agus tá níos mó daoine ag cur suim inti. Tá pobal na teanga lán brí agus beochta.

Guím gach rath ar na grúpaí ar fad atá ag eagrú imeachtaí idir anois agus Lá Fhéile Pádraig. Molaim do gach aon duine a bheith ag freastal ar imeachtaí le linn Sheachtain na Gaeilge. Más rud é nach raibh tú ar imeacht Gaeilge, gabh sa tseans. Buailfidh tú le pobal fáilteach, fíorchairdiúil. Tá scoth na n-imeachtaí ar siúl i mo cheantar féin. Tá gach sórt imeachta ar siúl sna hionaid Ghaeilge, amhail Raidió Fáilte, an Chultúrlann, Ionad Uíbh Eachach, Glór na Móna, Cumann Chluain Árd, Spórtlann na hÉireann, agus neart áiteanna eile. Molaim fosta na grúpaí eile atá ag cur spás ar fáil d’imeachtaí teanga mar chuid den fhéile seo. Bhí lá mór teaghlaigh i lár na cathrach fosta ag an deireadh seachtaine. Bhí mé ann anuraidh le mo chlann agus bhain muid an-sult as.

Críochnóidh mé ar phointe polaitíochta: ceiliúradh atá i Seachtain na Gaeilge ach cur i gcuimhne atá ann chomh maith. Cuireann sí i gcuimhne dúinn go bhfuil freagracht ollmhór ar an stát freastal ceart a dhéanamh ar an teanga. Tá cearta, meas agus, thar aon rud eile, infheistíocht ag teastáil. Chan amháin go bhfuil na rudaí sin ag teastáil ach is fada thar am iad. Mar sin de, bainimis sult as Seachtain na Gaeilge. Cuirimis i gcuimhne dóibh siúd atá i gcumhacht go bhfuil ag teip orthu beart a dhéanamh de réir a mbriathair.

[Translation: Seachtain na Gaeilge 2026 is in full swing. It is a fantastic festival that is going from strength to strength. Thousands of events are happening across Ireland. There are events for everyone, including learners, people who have no Irish and young people. It is a demonstration of the growth and development of the Irish language. More people are speaking it, more people are learning it, and more people are taking an interest in it. Its speakers are full of hope and enthusiasm. I wish all the groups that are organising events between now and St Patrick’s Day every success. I urge everyone to attend the events during Seachtain na Gaeilge. If you have never been at an Irish language event, take a chance. You will encounter welcoming, friendly people. First-class events are taking place in my area. Events of every kind are taking place in Irish language centres such as Ráidió Fáilte, the Cultúrlann, Ionad Uíbh Eachach, Glór na Móna, Cumann Chluain Árd, Spórtlann na hÉireann and many other places. I also commend those groups that are making space available for language events as part of the festival. There was a grand family day in the city centre at the weekend. I was there last year with my children, and we enjoyed it very much. I will finish on a political point: Seachtain na Gaeilge is a celebration but also a reminder. It reminds us that the state has a huge responsibility to make proper provision for the language. Rights, respect and, above all, investment are required. They are not only needed but long overdue. Therefore, let us enjoy Seachtain na Gaeilge. Let us remind those in power that they have failed to act according to their word.]

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Chuaigh páistí ar fud an domhain ar scoil Déardaoin seo caite agus iad gléasta mar na carachtair ab fhearr leo agus iad ag ceiliúradh Lá Domhanda na Leabhar. Ba é téama Lá Domhanda na Leabhar i mbliana "ag Léamh ar mhaithe le Pléisiúr", téama a roghnaíodh le dul i ngleic leis an mheath atá ag teacht ar an taitneamh a bhaineann daoine as an léitheoireacht.

Tá an domhan ag éirí níos digití i rith an ama — mura bhfuil muid ag féachaint ar dhá scáileán ag an am chéanna táimid ag gruaimscrolláil — agus tá ár réise aire ag crapadh agus meirg ag teacht ar bhua na samhlaíochta againn dá réir. Níl rochtain ag gach páiste ar na seirbhísí sruthaithe ná ar ábhar ar líne, agus sin an fáth a bhfuil luach ar leith ag ár leabharlanna. Cuidíonn leabharlanna agus leabhair le cothrom na Féinne a chothú, trí rochtain saor in aisce ar scéalta, spásanna staidéir agus ábhair oideachais riachtanacha a thabhairt do pháistí atá faoi mhíbhuntáiste, rud a chinntíonn nach mbíonn deiseanna á gcúngú ag ioncam, gléasanna ná cúinsí baile. Is moil eolais iad leabharlanna. Is moil phobail iad agus is spásanna teo iad fosta i ngéarchéim costais maireachtála iad, agus spreagann siad an tsamhlaíocht.

Thug Éire cuid scríbhneoirí iontacha don domhan, ní hé amhain i nGailege ach i mBéarla fosta: CS Lewis, James Joyce agus Seamus Heaney agus go leor, leor eile nach iad. Léiríonn a saothar a chumhachtaí atá focail. Tugann an litearthacht uirlisí do dhaoine a nguth agus a samhlaíocht féin a mhúnlú. I ré seo na scáileán, tá cumhacht ar leith ag baint le bheith ag léamh ar mhaithe le pléisiúr. Cuireann sé suaimhneas ionainn. Leathnaíonn sé ár n-intinn.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Matthew O'Toole has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have three minutes.

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

I am delighted to present this petition to the Assembly on behalf of the people of Rosetta, Wynchurch and that wider part of south-east Belfast. They have become increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress in installing a pedestrian crossing at the Knockbreda Road, which, as well as improving safety for the many families who live there, would allow the back gate into Cherryvale park to be opened. I am delighted that 642 people have signed our petition, which shows the strength of feeling locally.

Since I became an MLA, I have championed improved road safety, better connectivity and more access to green spaces. This crossing would achieve all three of those things, as well as the opening of the back gate into Cherryvale park. Despite those benefits, and despite support from Belfast City Council, including from local councillors from multiple parties, the Department for Infrastructure has been dragging its feet. It commissioned yet another consultation last year, the findings of which are yet to be published. DFI has spent £17,000 on the project thus far. I and my colleagues Claire Hanna MP and Councillor Séamas de Faoite have been working for years to ensure the delivery of the crossing as part of a wider package that also included the crossing that was successfully delivered on the Ravenhill Road.

Our petition reads as follows:

"Dear Liz Kimmins MLA, Minister for Infrastructure I am writing to you in relation to the proposed pedestrian crossing at Knockbreda Road. As you may know the crossing is not only required for road safety in the Rosetta area, but also to unlock the opening of the rear entrance of Cherryvale Playing Fields. In the five years since this crossing was first proposed there have been two consultations of residents in the area. Your Department received the data from the most recent consultation in May 2025. As a resident passionate about seeing the delivery of the crossing I am asking that you publish the result of that consultation and outline a clear timeline for the project up to the installation of the crossing."

I hope that the Minister will listen to residents, publish the consultation results, outline a clear timeline for delivery and get on with finally delivering the Knockbreda Road crossing, which will unlock the opening of the back entrance into Cherryvale park, a treasured community asset, particularly for families. The people of Rosetta have waited long enough: let us get this done.

Mr O'Toole moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

Opposition Business

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises that the titles of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are joint and equal in authority and responsibility; acknowledges that the difference in titles is a historical anomaly made at the request of a unionist party; agrees that the current titles entrench division, frequently detract political attention from matters of real importance and are against the true meaning of the Good Friday Agreement; notes that several holders of the office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister have called for the titles to be changed to reflect their joint nature; and believes that the titles of the First Minister and deputy First Minister should be equalised ahead of the next Assembly election.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

Please open the debate, Mr O'Toole.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I will pre-empt a comment that will probably be made by others in the course of the debate: the subject of the motion is not the most important thing that we will debate today; in fact, it is the least important thing that we will debate today. That is precisely the point. The question of who holds titles that have one word of difference but not one other substantive difference in role, responsibility or legal power should be the definition of a trivial matter. It is a distinction without a difference or, put another way, six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Today in Opposition time, we will debate the challenges of SEN classroom assistant provision and the all-island economy. Separately, we have pressed for interventions from the Finance Minister and the Economy Minister on the huge pressures on family budgets created by the Trump-Israeli actions in Iran. It goes without saying that all those issues, along with the Rates Orders and the Budget Bill, which we will debate tomorrow, all ministerial Question Times and, indeed, the petition on the Knockbreda Road crossing that I have just submitted are infinitely more important than the presence of a single, non-capitalised word at the start of a title for a job that is otherwise entirely equal to the other job.

Before I get on to more of the argument for the motion, it is important to say that the motion is not about the performance of specific First and deputy First Ministers; it is about the structure and design of the office and the fact that the bizarre differential in titles in an otherwise entirely joint office reinforces the arbitrary divisions in our politics and distracts from the real and important issues, some of which I just described.

On the day after International Women's Day, I acknowledge the fact that, whatever my profound criticisms of the performance of the Executive may be, we have First Ministers who have both sought to use their office to provide positive leadership in different ways. I say that genuinely. That is a reminder of why it was designed to be a joint office in the first place. In March 1998, only weeks before the Good Friday Agreement was signed, two best friends from different traditions, Philip Allen and Damien Trainor, were shot dead in the Railway Bar in Poyntzpass by sectarian killers from the Loyalist Volunteer Force. As a statement of unity of purpose and of collective revulsion, David Trimble and Séamus Mallon went to the village together to express the outrage felt by our entire community. Before it had been formalised in an agreement, Trimble and Mallon visually embodied and performed the powerful, transformative idea of partnership: two people in a joint office embodying a shared purpose in a place that had been defined by division.

There was never any question that, when it came to formalising the agreement, the roles would not be equal, but the then leader of the Ulster Unionist Party stipulated — this is in all the written accounts of the negotiations — that there had to be a difference in the two titles. In recent evidence to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, of which, I should declare, I am a member, former deputy First Minister, agreement negotiator and, of course, former leader of my party Mark Durkan indicated that the stipulation to have different titles may have represented a desire by the main unionist party to retain some form of what was termed "residual primacy" as a means of better selling other difficult compromises to the unionist electorate, and that residual —.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC). I note that it is mentioned in the amendment, which we will not support. The purpose of that amendment is to have the issue considered by the AERC.

Does the Member agree that the Good Friday Agreement was an incredible step forward for cross-community voting in how First Ministers were elected and that it was the St Andrews Agreement that embedded sectarianism in how we elected the First Ministers.

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

I will give a quick answer: yes. I dealt with that intervention fairly comprehensively. I will come on to some of the reforms that the SDLP proposes in addition to that measure, which is just one of a suite of reforms that we want to drive forward.

As a result of the effect of residual primacy, the difference of a single word has become, in many ways, an emblem of the strangeness and dysfunction that have plagued the institutions. On too many occasions, that strange, antiquated relic of supremacy — that shibboleth — has been magnified in our political debate, especially at election times. It must be said that that has been the preserve of unionist parties, in particular the DUP, which has returned to the well of tribalism with predictable regularity, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly. In 2011, Peter Robinson explicitly and repeatedly warned of the risk of having a republican First Minister. After the Assembly election of that year, he gloried in the fact that Northern Ireland continued to have a unionist First Minister. Just a few years before that, his predecessor, Ian Paisley, even while enjoying a famously warm public relationship with Martin McGuinness, pointedly and quite patronisingly referred to his joint officeholder, whose agreement he required for even routine matters, as his "deputy". No wonder there emerged a belief, heard regularly in the media, on doorsteps and in conversations around kitchen tables and in pubs, that the DUP would refuse even to tolerate the idea of a nationalist or republican First Minister. Of course, that is why Michelle O'Neill's election as First Minister two years ago carried with it real symbolism that I have always acknowledged, even though she had substantively held the role before. The spell of "residual primacy" should now have been broken. That sacred cow of hard-line unionism should have been slaughtered. It is time to move our political debate away from symbolism and towards accountability.

I agree with the former deputy First Minister — the former joint First Minister — the late Martin McGuinness, who was correct when he said that the titles should be equalised to reflect the equality of the roles. As the person to occupy the First Ministers' office for the longest time, which he did for a decade, he knew what he was talking about. It was not just Martin McGuinness, the longest-serving joint First Minister, who held that view but the shortest-serving one. The current Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, was deputy First Minister for just over a month in 2011. Back in 2009, John O'Dowd said:

"Joint first minister, I think, more truly reflects the position which both men hold. Martin and Peter are equals in this office."

John O'Dowd also said — I think that I am right in quoting him on this — that the differential in titles was a "slip-up" in the negotiations by my party, the SDLP. Whether John is right about that, we are happy to work now to redress the situation, starting with today's motion. I hope that the Finance Minister's party still feels the same way, because it is time to move our political debate away from symbolism and towards substance.

In the time that we have often fixated on that title, our health service has stagnated; our crumbling water infrastructure has got worse; and our environmental crisis, including that at Lough Neagh, has become an emergency. All of those things have stagnated and got worse while the focus at election time, often with the willing complicity of the media, has been a single word in a job title. No wonder the public have lost trust in our politics; no wonder we have a crisis in accountability. Part of what we are trying to do as the official Opposition is to create a culture of accountability in our politics and a culture of partnership — something that, as Robbie Butler said, we endeavoured to create in 1998 — not to continue the stand-off politics that we have at the minute.

The North that I want to live in is one based on partnership and respect, not on a race to see who gets to be top dog; not on years of failing public services and trust and then a race for a title at the end; not on Old Firm politics. I want a culture of accountability, and I want politics based on partnership, not primacy. I genuinely do not know how, after all of this time, anybody could disagree with making the title "Joint". Let me be clear: this is just one small part of a programme of reform that needs to be driven through. We want to reverse the St Andrews veto referred to by Mr Butler; we want to make it easier to elect a Speaker when there is none — that is no comment on the current incumbent, Mr Speaker; and we want to look a range of other things. We think that lots of those issues can be dealt with quickly; in fact, some could be dealt with before the election. We will hear the detail of the amendment. The AERC inquiry should not stop us taking a clear view here and now on things that we can improve. I want an end to Old Firm politics, and I want us to be based on partnership, not primacy.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move

Leave out all after "responsibility;" and insert: "believes that altering the titles alone does not address the deeper structural issues within our institutions requiring reform; notes that public confidence in devolved government depends on stability and delivery aided by the implementation of a meaningful package of reforms rather than dealing with issues in isolation; and expresses its support for the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee in considering options for substantive structural reforms which would strengthen accountability and ensure that the Assembly and Executive can better deliver for all communities."

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.]

The offices of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are joint and equal in authority and responsibility. That principle is clearly established in law and reflected in how the offices operate in practice. However, our amendment reflects a simple but important point: changing titles alone does not address the deeper structural issues in our institutions that require reform.

Through the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, we have been engaging with credible and authoritative academics and constitutional experts who study these institutions closely. The evidence presented to the Committee has been consistent: altering the titles of the offices would be a cosmetic exercise and would do little, if anything, to make the institutions more stable or effective. The leader of the Opposition said that the health service is stagnating, environmental controls are stagnating and other issues are creating problems. Changing the titles of the First Minister and deputy First Minister would make absolutely no difference to that.

While some may wish to focus on symbolism, the work in which Sinn Féin is engaging at the AERC is focused on substance. Every one of the issues that the Committee is dealing with is much more important than the issue that the leader of the Opposition has brought forward.

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

I thank the Member for kindly giving way. Will he cast his memory back to the last Assembly election when his party was beating the drum of symbolism by saying, "Make history. Make Michelle First Minister" and did not mention any other issues? Surely that contradicts what he is saying now.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It is not at all contradictory. In fact, it is informative that the SDLP has never previously tabled a motion to equalise the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. I said this to the leader of the Opposition on 'View from Stormont', last week: why is he so obsessed with it now?

Is it because Sinn Féin holds the First Minister post? That is how it appears to us. There was no focus whatsoever from the SDLP on the issue before a Sinn Féin MLA became First Minister.

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

Nearly 28 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, it is entirely legitimate to discuss how our institutions might evolve. Sinn Féin is open to that discussion. We are engaging constructively with the evidence, and we are prepared to explore reforms that strengthen accountability and improve how these institutions function. However, those conversations must take place in the proper forum. I cannot understand why the SDLP is pre-empting the work that is taking place in the AERC. Perhaps the SDLP should engage a bit more constructively with the work that is taking place in that Committee rather than coming in here and grandstanding with a motion that will produce no tangible change to the operation of these institutions.

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

Will the Member give way?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go ahead.

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

First of all, will he acknowledge that I actually proposed the AERC inquiry and that his party did not support it first time round? That is a point of fact. Secondly, just to clarify, does he agree with the former deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness that the titles should be equalised?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

First of all, when it comes to the AERC, I do not remember who proposed the —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will give way to the Chair of the Committee.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. There has been a complete load of nonsense from "Media Matt" when it comes to his interpretation, because the AERC is formatted to produce a report. Going outside the Chamber to try to get his media lines does nothing for the conducive work that the Committee is meant to be doing.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Absolutely. The role of the AERC is to produce reports; it does not actually make any decisions. One of the previous reports that I was involved in related to research that the AERC commissioned to consider the legislative output from the Assembly compared with that of other legislatures. When that research came back to the Committee, it was clear that the Assembly and Executive compared favourably with other legislatures on these islands.

The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is where the detailed work and evidence gathering is under way. I do not want to make this personal with the leader of the Opposition, but he is very rarely on time for the start of the Committee meetings. There may be good reasons for that. I was surprised when he arrived on time the other day. Maybe that was because his uncle was giving evidence.

There is a certain irony in the motion. It seems that the issue of titles has suddenly become a pressing concern for some only now that Sinn Féin holds the post of First Minister. There is another irony. The SDLP often lectures others in this Chamber about the use of so-called non-binding motions, yet this is now the third or fourth non-binding motion on institutional reform that the SDLP has brought to the House. If the aim is genuinely to advance reform, the most constructive approach is to engage fully with the work that is taking place at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and work collectively on serious proposals.

Our message is clear: Sinn Féin is up for the discussion on reform. We are engaging with the detail and will continue to do so through the proper forum: the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. That is the focus that our amendment seeks to bring to this debate.

There is another issue that people tend not to mention.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Sure. Go ahead.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member did not answer the last question that was posed by my colleague. A good few years ago, prior to his death, the former deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said that the offices were equal and the titles should be "joint First Minister". One time, at a dinner, he explained to me at great length the duties and roles of that office. He said that, when his party got into power, it would ensure that there were joint titles. Why do you not agree with that?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The discussion is about not only the single matter of the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister but a substantive programme of reform. Those matters have to be taken together. If you speak to your party leader in the Assembly, he will tell you that every witness who has come to the AERC has been asked whether changing the titles would make any substantive or tangible difference. On every occasion, the answer has been no. You are talking about reforming the institutions, but you will not do that by changing the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. If you are serious about reform, engage with the other substantive and important issues that will make a difference to the workings of the Assembly and the Executive.

I have one final point. One issue is completely forgotten when we discuss the poor delivery and stagnation of the institutions. We must always remember that one of the fundamental flaws in the institutions is that the DUP never bought into the Good Friday Agreement. It still does not. We have heard Ministers on the other side of the House say that they do not work in partnership with Sinn Féin. It is a badge of honour for them to get up and criticise the Good Friday Agreement. The issues to which they especially object are those of equality and parity of esteem. That is why, in 2026, we see DUP Ministers joining court cases against the erection of bilingual signage. Sin a bhfuil uaim.

[Translation: That is all from me.]

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Perhaps I should leave a bit of time for the leader of the Opposition to regain his normally pale complexion. It went the colour of his hair for a brief moment during the debate.

For many in the Chamber, "fundamental reform" has become a buzzword. It has become a buzzword for many within nationalism and, indeed, for the Alliance Party. However, it is often associated with a degree of chronological snobbery. The issue, for which many Members in the House will not account directly, is that there are fundamental differences in our society. There is a fundamental difference in constitutional outlooks and in how people in the House view social issues. I could go on. Therefore, there will always be the need for institutions that reflect and balance the composition of political thought in Northern Ireland. That is a fact. If that had not been the case, we would have had no need for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the St Andrews Agreement or the previous agreements that failed. That is fundamentally factual. When we debate such issues, we should do so with that firmly in our minds.

The final six words of the Opposition motion are:

"ahead of the next Assembly election."

That gets to the heart of what the SDLP is trying to achieve with reform. It is not, as the SDLP proclaims, about better or more accountable government but about electoral advantage. I understand that the St Andrews Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement — whatever you want to call it — have not served the SDLP well. That party has been reduced in every election to this place to such an extent that voters have now put it into opposition. I understand its desire to see changes to the institutions that have not suited its style of politics. However, time and time again, we see one-upmanship by the SDLP and Alliance when they jump ahead of the very Committee that was set up to look at where accommodation can be found and some of the outstanding issues can be progressed.

It has been mentioned before by Sinn Féin and others that the fact remains that fundamental reform requires buy-in from political parties that make up the Chamber. You cannot get away from that fact. To do so is delusional in the extreme. Whatever fundamental reform you go through, if a party in the Chamber decides that it no longer wants to partake in these institutions because it feels that continuing to do so is demonstrably against its interests and those of the electorate that it represents, it can walk away, no matter what the institutions are reformed to say. That is factual. Then we have a secondary question to that: if the largest party in unionism or nationalism chose to do so, would this place have democratic legitimacy? That is a fact that many Members cannot get their heads around. We need to see good government and a spirit that ensures that the institutions can work to their best for all our people, but there is a crusade by the SDLP leader — sorry, the leader of the Opposition; he may be leader some day — and the Alliance Party to try to drag the Assembly into positions on non-binding motions to influence the work of the Committee.

The Committee will produce a report. It may or may not contain recommendations that the entire Assembly can buy into, but that is where the work should be carried out. I say very clearly that it would be a grave mistake to believe that institutional change can be railroaded through at the expense of one side.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving away. He had started to go on to the point that I am going to make, which is that any agreement around reform needs to have the support of all parties, particularly the largest unionist party.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member makes a vital point. We saw the heartache and instability that was created when certain parties and other institutions, such as the Irish Government, the British Government and the European Union, attempted to remove cross-community consent from a vote in the Chamber to advance their own ends. You have to think about this. Have you ever given thought to the fact that fundamental reform that you may see as being in the best interests of this place for stability might actually cause long-term instability? That is a fundamental point that, time and time again, a lot of Members miss. The devolved institutions in this Province will only succeed if they command broad support from across the political spectrum. Unionism and nationalism are fundamental. They account for significant swathes — the vast majority — of the Chamber. Vital safeguards should remain.

Unionism will not be lectured on what should be removed to best advance nationalism. It was OK for provisions to be contained in agreements when it suited nationalism. On the Member's closing point about the Belfast Agreement, I did not support anything that released prisoners onto our streets or led to the disbandment of the RUC.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I rise on behalf of the Alliance Party to support the motion. We see some merit in the amendment, but we will oppose it because we feel that, while the AERC is doing some good work and taking some great evidence, there is potential for incremental change, led by the UK Government, on institutional reform here. We recognise that, to use Mr Sheehan's phrase, there are "deeper structural issues" in the institutions that need urgent attention by the Government.

The Assembly knows, because it is written into law and demonstrated in practice, that the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister are joint and equal in authority and responsibility. One cannot act without the other. One cannot remain in post without the other. Their powers are exercised together, their decisions are taken together, and their mandates rest on the same statutory foundation. The distinction between "First" and "deputy First" suggests seniority and subordination. It suggests that one office leads and the other follows. That simply is not how our institutions are designed to operate, and it is not how the law defines them.

The titles were the product of political negotiation at a particular time, many years ago now.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. At one of the presentations to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, there was a suggestion — it was, I think, made seriously, but some thought it in jest — that there should be a third officeholder, namely for the Alliance Party. That received some support from that party's member on the Committee. Is it the Alliance Party's official position that there should be three in office rather than two? How would that lead to effective and efficient government?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I have not been following the Committee's work that closely, and nor have I heard that suggestion. It is certainly not party policy as such, but I can understand why some people would see merit in it.

The Alliance Party has consistently stated that our institutions must be reformed and allowed to evolve to reflect society as it changes around us. The fact that something was agreed in a fragile context nearly three decades ago does not mean that it must remain so for ever, particularly where it reflects neither political reality nor the community that we are all elected to serve. The spirit of the Good Friday Agreement was not to entrench hierarchy but to create a partnership in the leadership of government here. It was not to create a system of symbolic winners or losers but to ensure that government here would be exercised on the basis of mutual respect, parity of esteem and shared responsibility. Yet, the current titles continue, however unintended, to reinforce a narrative of hierarchy. We can all see that influencing the narrative at every Assembly election. As Mr McCrossan pointed out, as we come up to an election, it offers a chance to garner support within the respective electoral bases.

The titles feed the perception that one tradition holds the top job while the other merely occupies the second job. That perception may be politically convenient for some, but it does not serve an increasingly mixed and diverse society. As has been mentioned, several former holders of the post from different political backgrounds have recognised that anomaly and called for change; those who have occupied the posts have acknowledged that the titles misrepresent their joint nature.

Importantly, such a change would send a signal beyond the Chamber. Most of all, perhaps, it would make this place more relevant to a younger generation that does not see politics solely through the prism of orange and green; to those who identify as neither or indeed the significant minority who identify as having several national and cultural identities at once; to those who belong to a group that has emerged post agreement whose prime identity is Northern Irish; and to those who want to see our institutions reflect cooperation rather than competition. I emphasise again that the Alliance Party sees the move as part of much broader reform, including the removal of sectarian vetoes, that would have a much more direct and profound impact on the ability of this place to push for meaningful reform, to make meaningful decisions and to deliver meaningful legislation on behalf of the public.

Ahead of the next Assembly election, we have an opportunity to correct the situation and deliver an Executive Committee that is much more aligned to what the voters elected. That will ensure that, when voters go to the polls, they do so knowing that the leadership of the Executive Committee of government here is, at least in principle, based on equality and genuine power-sharing. This is a modest reform, but it is a meaningful one. For those reasons, we support the motion.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the motion but will not support the amendment. We need to look at the true intent of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. I recently appeared in the media with the leader of the SDLP, when we talked about moving back to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement's factory settings. In particular, strand one of the agreement talks about:

"Executive authority to be discharged on behalf of the Assembly by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and up to ten Ministers with Departmental responsibilities."

It then clearly says:

"The First Minister and Deputy First Minister shall be jointly elected into office by the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis"

this, by

"parallel consent, i.e. a majority of those members present and voting, including a majority of the unionist and nationalist designations present and voting".

That was a fundamental shift away from what had gone before. After decades of violence and terror, the Assembly was designed to work with a degree of consensus and with the support of all in it.

Unfortunately and regrettably, after almost every other discussion thereafter, particularly since the St Andrews Agreement, much of that consensus has been broken. Frankly, the aim of the likes of the St Andrews Agreement was to turn what had been the intent of consensus through the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement into two-party majoritarianism. Consensus is difficult enough to achieve with a mandatory coalition, but that consensus was broken at St Andrews.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. I hope that I am not misrepresenting him when I say that he talks about a return to the factory settings of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and, indeed, the consensus that it indicated. Will he agree that there was no consensus for the widespread release of terrorist prisoners back into the very communities of people whom they had terrorised? That is fundamental. The Belfast Agreement did not deliver the equilibrium for me or, indeed, my community that some in the House claim it did.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for his remarks.

I remember attending an event at Yale University with various others, including the late, lamented ex-Principal Deputy Speaker Christopher Stalford. The event included a series of discussions about the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and there was a certain person there who, I must admit that I had not realised, had been so central to the discussions leading to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. That was Peter Robinson. Peter Robinson, throughout the discussions at that event, talked clearly about the importance of what the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement did and, indeed, about the influence that he had had on it. He also talked on many occasions about the consensus that grew from it. I was then the leader of Ulster Unionist Party, and I was so surprised by what he said that I stood up and said, "I'm Steve Aiken, and I never realised that Peter Robinson was a supporter of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement". There were about 150 people in the audience at that event, including about 100 from Northern Ireland, and all that I heard were guffaws.

To claim that improvements were made to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement at St Andrews is false. I do not think that anybody considers the St Andrews Agreement to have made the circumstances better. The beauty of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was the consensus in it. How do you perform the difficult balancing act of having consensus and a mandatory coalition when, frankly, the parties that are in government are just as much in opposition to the other parties in government as they are with them? It does not seem to work, but, for the people of Northern Ireland, there has to be an idea that they can look to. Our party has thought about that, and Mike Nesbitt as leader talked about that quite a long time ago. All that we are saying is that the First Minister and deputy First Minister posts are coequal.

In 2016, as we all sat here and listened to a debate just as the Assembly was about to come down, it became clear not only that the positions were coequal but that, bearing in mind the confusion that most people had when talking about the two leaders at the time, it was probably more appropriate to call them co-leaders. We know that most elections in Northern Ireland tend to be a case of voters being told, "Vote for us-uns, or you will get them-uns" or "bitty fest" or whatever people do not want to see. To call them co-leaders would be a clear indication to the people of Northern Ireland that we are serious about getting the Northern Ireland Assembly to work. As I have said time and time again, let us return to the factory settings and the intent of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in order to get consensus. If we are to have the continuation of —.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I appreciate the Member's giving way. He says that we should go back to the factory settings of the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement was clear in providing for a First Minister and a deputy First Minister, so he is contradicting the very point that he is making.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Phillip. You have raised a point that I was about to come to in the last 30 seconds of my contribution. We need an indication that we are taking the situation seriously, and one of the ways in which we can do that is by making sure that we have an example. You, Phillip, are one of the people who has talked about having a First Minister for all. We do not have a First Minister for all; that is clear. What we should have are co-First Ministers, so equal weight should be given —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

— to them.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Reform of the institutions and how we do government is absolutely required. Sinn Féin unequivocally supports the need for a real and meaningful package of reforms to be brought forward by the two Governments, in partnership, of course, with the parties in the Assembly. What the SDLP has proposed today, however, is not meaningful and not transformative. It is about the optics rather than the structural change that would bring increased stability and accountability to the Assembly. Essentially, it is style over substance. That is not just me saying that or just my opinion; it is what every academic, think tank and, indeed, former First Minister and deputy First Minister have told the Assembly and Executive Review Committee during its evidence-gathering sessions over past months. When asked, every one of them agreed that the titles are equal in law and that changing them would have no impact on the stability of the institutions.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

That is not true.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Yes, it is.

They have said that it would simply be a cosmetic change. In fact, the motion itself makes that very point:

"That this Assembly recognises that the titles of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are joint and equal in authority and responsibility".

It really begs the question of how serious the SDLP is about reform when that is the best that it can come up with — when that is all that it has to offer.

I am sure that we will hear from the SDLP about how changing the titles would be a gesture of goodwill. The DUP, of course, is famous for reciprocating goodwill and for its generosity of spirit. The DUP, let us remind ourselves, wears its opposition to power-sharing and parity of esteem like a badge of honour. As my colleague Pat Sheehan said, it was only a matter of weeks ago that the DUP Education Minister told the Assembly that Sinn Féin was not his partner in government. Sadly, today, we see the SDLP playing to some of the most regressive elements of unionism that just cannot deal with the reality of a nationalist First Minister. That was never supposed to happen. Instead of defending the right of a nationalist to become First Minister, the SDLP has fallen for unionism's regressive agenda, which is deeply disappointing.

The motion is clearly not an attempt at meaningful reform. It is an empty gesture. It is a sop to the DUP. I am sure that the DUP will be delighted that the SDLP is doing its work in undermining and undoing the election of a nationalist First Minister. Sinn Féin will not be deterred. We will remain focused on meaningful, effective and properly considered reforms of the institutions, because it is immaterial what the First Minister and deputy First Minister are called if we cannot get past the blockages to electing them in the first place. We need real structural reform, not a five-minute makeover, which is what the motion effectively is.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The motion asks this simple but important question: if the offices of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are equal in authority and responsibility, why do we continue to suggest otherwise through their titles? Under the legislation, the offices are appointed together, they exercise their powers jointly and one cannot exist without the other. The titles that we continue to use imply a hierarchy that simply does not exist in practice. It may seem like a small issue, but it has real consequences. It feeds a political culture in which, too often, debate is focused on symbolism rather than substance. Too often, this place becomes caught up in arguments about who sits in the high chair rather than focusing on the issues that matter most to the people whom we represent. We saw that dynamic only last week. At a time when the world is watching a deeply concerning escalation of violence in the Middle East —.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat

[Translation: Thank you.]

Thanks for giving way. I know that the Member is not on the Committee, but is she aware that every expert witness who has appeared in front of the Committee has said that changing the titles would make no substantive difference to the operation of the institutions here?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you for your intervention. As my colleague set out at the beginning of the debate, this is not the most important thing, but it is important in this regard: given that the offices are equal, why under goodness would they not have the same name? It would stop the nonsense of this childish, "Who is going to sit in the high chair?" time and again. Just back —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

OK. Go ahead.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I note the Member's comment about the high chair, but it is more like a double buggy. If it is, does the Member agree that it makes no difference? If it made a difference, why not just call them the "co-First Ministers"? That sends a strong message to everybody that they are not, in some way, in constant opposition to each other.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I agree. I like the "double buggy" bit.

At a time when the world was watching the deeply concerning escalation of violence in the Middle East, the conversation in this Building still drifted towards arguments about who was in charge. That really should give us pause. It reflects the deeper problem of how this place operates. Stormont was designed at a time when the priority was to secure peace and stability after decades of conflict. Those institutions succeeded in bringing together communities that had been divided for generations, and that achievement should always be recognised, but the structures that were created were designed primarily to manage division not to maximise delivery. We see the limits of that every day.

The First Minister and the deputy First Minister do not hold authority over their ministerial colleagues. They cannot direct Departments or enforce collective responsibility in the way that most Governments can. Therefore, the titles carry more symbolic weight than practical power. When symbolism becomes the focus of politics, it detracts from the work that people expect us to do.

Recognising that something is not working does not mean rejecting the institutions that we have; it means that we are willing to improve them. For many years, the SDLP has argued that our institutions should evolve so that they function better for the people whom they serve. Equalising the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister is one small step — but a meaningful one — in that direction. There is much more to be done, and we recognise that. The change would simply reflect the legal reality that already exists. I do not understand the pushback. The change would remove an unnecessary source of division and allow the Assembly to focus less on status and more on delivery.

This is not a new idea —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Can I just progress with this?

Sinn Féin previously used the term "joint First Ministers" and, in 2015, proposed formal changes to the titles. More recently, the former First Minister, Baroness Foster, spoke in favour of equalising the titles. That is a constructive position, and it shows that there is recognition across the political spectrum that change is possible.

The equalisation of the titles is not something to fear. It does not change Northern Ireland's constitutional position. It simply aligns the language of our institutions with the reality of how we already operate.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. For fear of misrepresenting Baroness Foster, she did not offer an opinion on whether she was for or against; she reiterated that it was cosmetic. The focus of the motion has been about how this removes the ability for parties to say, "Vote for us or get them." Does the Member not accept that, in every Government and every political party around the world, that is exactly what is done? They want to replace the people who are in power. With that in mind, will the Member explain why the SDLP did not hold fire with a motion like this until we see the results of a current AERC investigation and Committee report that will, ultimately, talk about a lot of the issues?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We work within the context of the Committee as well, but we think that some very quick results can be found —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— by changing some of the small things quickly.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Sorry.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You have had your extra minute.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Most mornings, when I arrive up here, I think that I am in a parallel universe, but, when I hear lectures from the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party about the institutions, I know I am in such a universe. Those two parties created the institutions that they have now come here to criticise and debate. They try to bring us back to the good old days of yore, when they were the two big players in the Assembly and tell us that, if only they were still the two largest parties, Northern Ireland would be a far better place. I need not remind the House that the institutions did not survive long under the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. Those parties then come here and criticise the creation of the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. Which parties created those titles? The Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. However, when the facts do not speak to the reality, they come up with the nonsense line that keeps getting brought out: "Oh, it is the true meaning of the Belfast Agreement", or, "It is the spirit of the Belfast Agreement" — not what is written down in law, not what was voted on by the people of Northern Ireland, not the law that passed through Parliament but the "true meaning" and the "true spirit".

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

No. I will not give way, Mr Aiken.

Of course, the people of Northern Ireland cannot be smart enough to read the text of the Belfast Agreement, so those parties have to come up with the "spirit" or the "true meaning".

I also challenge the remarks made by the Chair of the Executive Office Committee about sectarian vetoes. The Democratic Unionist Party was elected by the unionist people of Northern Ireland to ensure that we stood up and protected them. The veto given to unionism and the protection of unionism are not sectarian. We take the discharge of our duties to the electorate very seriously.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that one of the main beneficiaries of the current system is the Alliance Party? No Alliance Members are in the Chamber to discuss the issue. Under that very agreement, the Alliance Party has seen over-representation in the Executive, so to throw the toys out of the pram about the areas that do not suit it is ironic to say the least.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

It is, and I was just coming on to that point. The Chair of TEO Committee said that she wanted to see an Executive who are more reflective of the electorate. If that were the case, we would have only one Alliance Minister in the Executive. Perhaps, as with the work of the AERC, the Chair of TEO Committee has not been following the debate very closely.

The unionist electorate of Northern Ireland will somewhat object to Mr Aiken’s remark that the St Andrews Agreement was no improvement on the Belfast Agreement. Tell that to the people of Northern Ireland, who wanted to ensure that all Ministers in the House supported the police. Tell that to the electorate of Northern Ireland, which wanted to ensure that every Minister and Member of the House had to reject violence and that every political party here had to decommission its weapons. I strongly challenge the remarks made by the Ulster Unionist Party that the St Andrews Agreement did not deliver much-needed change.

The member for South Down Ms Ennis reminded the House about the Democratic Unionist Party's generosity of spirit. Perhaps I will take the opportunity to remind her and her party about Sinn Féin's generosity of spirit when it comes to supporting the murder of people in Northern Ireland and its generosity of spirit when it comes to protecting British and Irish passport holders caught up in the Middle East. The First Minister of no alternative would rather be the First Minister of not turning up. Indeed, she would rather spend her weekend celebrating bloodthirsty murderers such as Brendan "Bik" McFarlane than doing her job as the First Minister of this country.

Ultimately, the people of Northern Ireland will have the opportunity in 14 months' time to have their say on the reform or political party that they want to vote for. The Democratic Unionist Party will clearly set out its message to the people of Northern Ireland. It will be for them to decide the changes that will take place in this place, not a meaningless motion from the leader of the Opposition.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

We live in a situation where people are being dragged into deeper, longer and more dangerous wars and there is global uncertainty of a kind we have not seen for 15, 20 or more years. In that context, it seems bizarre that we are having a debate about title changes on the doors of Ministers who have delivered nothing of substance for working-class communities. The SDLP may be running out of ideas for its motions, because it has considerable time every month or six weeks to propose them. If that is the case, I am happy to lend some ideas for motions for the Members opposite to propose to the House.

It is naive to think that, just by equalising the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister — changing them to make them joint First Ministers or First Minister 1 and First Minister 2 or whatever — elections here would no longer be a battle about which was the biggest party or who has the biggest communal bloc. To say that that is naive is to put it mildly. I would hazard a guess that, if it were to happen, the debate would become about who the "first" or "real" First Minister was. We would not move away from that context, because communalism is hardwired in this place through its structures and the agreements that brought it into being.

I was not here at the start of the debate, but there is merit in querying the timing of the proposal from the SDLP when unionism is on the back foot and in a historic crisis. I do not know whether I have time to go into all that or whether the Deputy Speaker would let me expand on that

[Interruption]

, but I could send the Members to my right a few articles. As I said, there is no problem with the proposal in principle; however, it is a bit absurd for us to have this debate, and I query why it has come to the House now.

In a general sense, my party and I — I have said this from day 1 —.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

There is only you.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I do not know what you shouted, but I am going to move on.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

It is only you; you do not have a party.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I do have a party — an all-island party, with TDs. I will teach you about that some day.

We have always called for maximum reform of these institutions, but it is clear that most of the bigger parties are opposed to real, deep, meaningful change. Sinn Féin fought the previous election on the mantra of "First Minister for all", and it was rewarded in part for that when it was returned as the biggest party. That slogan, and that reality, were symbolically important for many, but we need to move beyond symbols and see delivery for working-class people. The First Minister and the Executive as a whole have not delivered for working-class people across the board. Most people have checked out of Stormont and have completely lost faith in this institution.

It is ridiculous that, if the Alliance Party were to become the biggest or second-biggest party in this place, it would not be able to take up those positions. I have been more critical of the Alliance Party on many things than other parties have been, but that is absurd and shows how sectarianism and communalism are hardwired into this place.

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

I appreciate the Member's giving way. He talks about sectarianism and communalism being hardwired. Given that the differential in titles was a communal demand of the largest unionist party 20-odd years ago, why, if he is opposed to those things, is he sceptical about our trying to change it?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

My point was that it is naive to think that that change would bring about a new form of politics or type of election.

Before the Member intervened, I was making the point that it is absurd and ridiculous that parties here are "othered". I find that offensive. I am a socialist — Alliance Party members are liberals; they can define themselves — and the fact that we are put to the side, literally in my case, and othered, with my vote not counting and my being seen as a second-class MLA, is distasteful.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way on that point?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Yes: go ahead.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member outline how many times in this mandate his vote has not counted?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I advise the Member to look at how many times cross-community votes were needed.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

How many?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I do not have the number to hand.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

You do not know. It is a myth.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

It is not a memory test; it is a political debate.

It is important to emphasise that point, and the Alliance Party has done so and can do that for itself.

There are good points in the amendment about the need for reform of the whole structure of this place, not just to change the First Minister titles; however, I am sceptical of the idea that Sinn Féin and other parties would push ahead with it.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call Carál Ní Chuilín to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have five minutes.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I will start where Pat started. I have listened to the whole debate, and it is definitely my opinion that the motion is just about tinkering. It is about denial. It is the first time that there has been a nationalist First Minister, and it is about making sure that that does not happen again, because of what they describe as an "election mantra". I am also a member of the AERC. To repeat the point that Pat, Sinead and others have made, we have received evidence from well-respected and renowned academics, who have all stated that changing the titles would not make a difference because, in law, the two positions have the same authority. The issue of reform should be debated here, but we still have loads of work to do in the AERC, so I was a bit surprised when I saw the motion's coming forward. However, when I then heard the debate, I realised what it was about: it is all bluff. Pat mentioned the fact that the massive amount of work that we have to do in the AERC requires not just focus but substance. The SDLP may have a suite of reforms, but that suite of reforms needs to be brought to and discussed in that Committee.

Parts of the SDLP's narrative during the debate have been quite contradictory. It recognises that the positions are equal in law and practice, but, yet and all, it feels that there needs to be a change. I was a bit disappointed to hear the positions of First Minister and deputy First Minister being referred to as high chairs and double buggies. That was quite patronising, to be frank. If that is the level of contribution, maybe you would be better just sticking here.

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

Will the Member give way?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will, as long as you are brief, Matthew.

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

I will be very brief. I know that you will keep me right in that regard. Do you agree with Martin McGuinness, who said that the titles should be equalised?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Of course we do, but you are talking about positions that, as we all know, are equal in law. Michelle referred to herself as "joint First Minister". Matthew, when you get around to knocking doors and talking to people, this issue will come up. When a nationalist/republican held the position of First Minister for the first time ever, what did the SDLP do? It jumped to change that. That is what will stick in people's heads.

Jonathan, I have to laugh. What age were you when the Good Friday Agreement was signed? Seven? However, you said that, under your watch, the RUC would not have been changed and that something else would not have been changed. You sound ridiculous at times.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst that was a reflection on what I said, what I meant was my community. The Member cannot say with a straight face that the release of terrorists onto the streets did not retraumatise victims and that the disbandment of an organisation that lost hundreds of officers at the hands of paramilitaries was not a serious issue for my community.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK. There were lots of issues in the Good Friday Agreement that impacted on people.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

So do not patronise me.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am not patronising you, but —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

You did.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Let us return to the motion.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

— you absolutely do not have dominance when it comes to impact. That needs to stop.

At the end of the day, I would have much preferred the motion to be about a bill of rights. Was it? Absolutely not. Mike Nesbitt was a representative on the Ad Hoc Committee. He told people as part of those presentations, "We're getting there" and, "We're nearly there" and then walked into the Chamber and vetoed it. It is not about sectarian vetoes; it is about ending vetoes that look, feel, walk and talk as though they are sectarian. You can jump up and down all you want, but, if that is what it looks like, that is what it is.

I also agree on the issue of the designation as "Other". I am glad that someone has come in to support you, Paula. You were left on your own for almost the whole debate, which does not really say a lot. I want to make sure — I guess that we all do — that, when you strip it all down, this place reflects the people who elect us. It is democratic that, when d'Hondt is used, it is a reflection of first preference votes. Name changes are not going to do that. It is about first preference votes, and about people getting positions based on what the electorate returns. However, if that is the case, we need to look at everything across the board.

Will doing that result in a better, more respectful Chamber? No, it will not, because people will have bad manners regardless of how many first preference votes they get. I want to see substance over style. I want to see reforms for which we can all have the same energy and determination. I would like to see such discussions be had at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee rather than in superficial debates that are really about creating clickbait. Sin é.

[Translation: That is all.]

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you. I call Matthew O'Toole to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Matthew, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate has been spiky, as I thought it would be. Notable by its absence was a defence, from a single person, of the status quo. Not one person could offer a substantive defence of the status quo. Lots of people question my and the SDLP's motives, as the Opposition, for tabling the motion. Lots of people said that the change would not be substantive. Those are fair enough comments. People even made personal digs at me. That is grand: I am a big boy and can take it. Not one person, however, including anyone from the Sinn Féin and DUP Benches, could offer a substantive defence of the differential. The reason that they did not is because they cannot.

In opening the debate, the first thing that I said is that this is not the most important issue facing the Assembly but, rather, the least important. That is why we need to change the titles. They reinforce arbitrary division and an Old Firm style of politics from which we need to move away.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way in a second. I want to make some progress first.

I thought that this would happen and was almost amused to see it happen, yet I deeply resent the nationalist green-Lundying of the SDLP: the suggestion that we are doing this now because there is a Sinn Féin First Minister. We have taken the same position for years. Here is the thing: Martin McGuinness and John O'Dowd also took that position. If they took that position then, why is it wrong now? Let us grow up. Slurring us for tabling a motion on reform is not the way in which to defend your party's record in the Executive.

I will respond to a comment that was made repeatedly about the AERC. From the way in which people are talking about AERC, I did not realise that I had joined some form of papal conclave, or perhaps a fight club, that must not be talked about outside the room. AERC is a Committee like any other. We all sit on Statutory Committees on which we debate things and come to a collective view, or not. There is nothing illegitimate about Committee members taking a position and tabling a motion.

Pat Sheehan mentioned non-binding motions. We are the Opposition, and what we do is table Opposition business. You guys are the Executive parties. Introduce some legislation, and we will debate it. You have more power than we do to bring forward legislation.

Sinn Féin Members, starting with Pat, followed by Sinéad and Carál, stated that everyone who has given evidence to the Committee said that any change would be totally cosmetic and therefore should not happen. That is just not true. I will pick one example. At the beginning of her presentation, Professor Joanne McEvoy, an academic from the University of Aberdeen, said:

"we will focus on what could or should be reformed in terms of Executive design ... First, we suggest that parties may wish to revisit the titles of the top two posts. The 'deputy' tag can cause confusion and symbolic problems for some parties, despite the First Minister and deputy First Minister having equal power. It may be prudent now to change the titles to 'First Ministers'".

What Sinn Féin Members repeatedly said about no one having given evidence to that effect and any change being completely superficial is therefore completely untrue.

I will tackle some of the points that were made. There were reasonable points made that require a response, and I am happy to respond to them. Pat said that I am very rarely on time. I have, I think, attended the vast majority of AERC evidence sessions, and we have pushed the agenda. I look forward to working collectively with all Committee members and am happy to do so.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way briefly to the Chair of the AERC.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. In opening the debate, he said that this is the least important thing that we will discuss today. That is true. It is factual. I ask this of the Member sincerely, however: how would he be responding if it were the DUP that had tabled the motion? Would he have called it childish? Would he have called it tinkering? Would he have called it a distraction from the serious issues of today? I guarantee that the Member would not be taking the position that he is adopting now if the DUP had tabled the motion.

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

Here is the thing: we would support the motion, because we are not a tribal party that is consumed by Old Firm-style politics and sectarian point-scoring, as both your parties are. OK? We are a party that believes in a new North and a new Ireland, based on partnership. That, not the green-Lundying that we have heard from Sinn Féin and the carping that we have heard from the DUP, is in our DNA. I say that just to be clear about who we are, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Your reaction says it all. It was a sincere question.

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

I will return to some of what we have heard today. Jonathan Buckley talked about one-upmanship. That is exactly what we want to move away from.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

One-upmanship from you.

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

We want to move away from one-upmanship and towards "jointery". Mr Buckley is entitled to have a dig at me. That is fine: I do not mind.

Others spoke about their party's position. Paula talked about Alliance, which has a long track record of talking about reform of the institutions. That is fair enough. She made those points very well. I am glad that Alliance will support our motion.

This is not the end of reform, and it is not, to be clear — let me repeat this — the most important reform. It is one of a suite of reforms that we need. I am glad that we now have progress on this.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member take an intervention?

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

I will take an intervention in one second. Every party in the Chamber has, at one point or another, said that they agree substantively with reform, so let us make progress.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I take personal umbrage at being called sectarian. I have never said anything in the Chamber or outside the Chamber — in any setting — that was sectarian. I am not sectarian. I am not a member of a sectarian party. I will not be accused of being sectarian.

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

I do not believe that I accused you of being sectarian, Linda.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

[Inaudible.]

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

However, what I will say is that some of the debate has moved towards a situation where, when we challenge and call for genuine partnership in this place, we are accused of, as it were, letting the side down: "You are only doing it because you are whatever". The implication is clear. That is not what we are doing. We have been clear in relation to —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

I do not have much time, so I will not give way. I have given way multiple times to Members. If I have time later on, I will; I promise.

Members repeatedly said that it is a cosmetic change. If it is a cosmetic change, let us go ahead and do it. I have not heard anybody substantively disagree with it. I have simply heard Members cast aspersions on me, the Opposition and our motives. That is all fine. However, if you do not substantively disagree with it, let us get on and do it.

Gerry does not disagree with the merits of the reform but seems to think that it, in itself, is cosmetic. He also strongly disagrees with the communalism and tribalism that, he thinks, characterise these institutions. This is one area where an arbitrary difference reinforces something that is not healthy in our politics: a horse race towards a job title. It is important to say that that was created by the largest unionist party in 1998. I do not think that we — certainly, those in parties that believe in a new Ireland and in a republic where there is equality of citizenship — should endorse that type of arbitrary differential. I do not want to be top dog in the wee North; I want a new Ireland, based on equality of citizenship and mutual respect, including for unionists. I want to equalise the titles, because I want to move our politics away from the kind of point-scoring and tribalism that we have seen. Yes, unionism created that shibboleth in the first place, and, yes, that is why the First Minister's election in 2024 was genuinely historic. I said that then, and I will say it now. That having happened, I do not understand why equalising the titles, as was the position of Martin McGuinness and John O'Dowd, and as is, I think, the position of Sinn Féin, based on what its Members have said today, would be such an unacceptable thing to do.

It is about having a broader culture of accountability in our politics, because the public out there are genuinely frustrated with the lack of delivery in our politics. They are frustrated with tribal point-scoring. If we fight another election on the basis of a race to a job title, they will become unbelievably frustrated with our politics. They will think that we do not care at all about their public services, which are crumbling; the environment, which is stagnating; and the economy, which is not creating enough opportunities for young people. They will think that all that matters is point-scoring and bickering, particularly between the two big parties, which they see repeatedly and have seen today in the Chamber.

I want to have a genuine spirit of partnership. That is what we as a political party genuinely believe in. That is why we think that this, yes, small, yes, cosmetic change is necessary. I genuinely, sincerely urge all parties in the Chamber to get behind and support it. I have not heard one Member explain to me why retaining the status quo is a good idea. Lots of Members are frustrated with me and angry with us for raising the issue, and they questioned our motives. That is fine. That is what political parities do.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

However, I have not heard one Member question the merits.

You have 10 seconds, Mr Buckley, and then I will give way briefly to Mr Sheehan, who also wants in.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member cannot accuse Members on this Bench of having a go at him and his party when he has had a go at everybody else the whole way through this contribution.

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

I think you will find that I did not do that in my opening remarks, but then Members opened up on me during the debate. I am happy to take it and give it back.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member made a pitch about the two big parties being the problem. That plays into the lazy narrative, instead of pointing out where the problem lies, which is with the DUP, which has never bought into the Good Friday Agreement.

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

There, in the last 30 seconds of the debate, I will agree with Pat Sheehan. The DUP has never bought into the spirit of compromise. You and I want to live in a new Ireland — a republic that is based on equality of citizenship. Why are we playing the DUP's game? Let us equalise these titles and move towards a new Ireland that is based on equality and respect, not top-dog nonsense and Old Firm-style politics. I commend the motion to the House.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Main Question put.

Some Members

Aye.

Some Members

No.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The next item of business is Question Time. Given the time left to us before it starts, we will return to this item of business after Question Time, when we will begin by clearing the Lobbies for the Division. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.51 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

2. Mr Kelly asked the Minister of Justice for an update on work to expand domestic homicide reviews (DHRs) to include death by suicide. (AQO 3231/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I remain committed to exploring whether the domestic homicide review model can be widened to include domestic abuse-related deaths by suicide. Our initial assessment, which has been informed by the experience in England and Wales, indicates that significant additional investment from the Executive and relevant agencies would be required before such an extension could be considered.

Before any formal scoping can commence, including an assessment of the operational readiness of all agencies and organisations that are involved in DHRs, it is essential that the current system is operating effectively, efficiently and sustainably. Expanding the model without assurance on the necessary additional resources that will be required to support it, including the availability of specialist expertise, would risk placing further pressure on already stretched organisations and, I believe, impact on the quality and timeliness of reviews and the work to implement the learning from them.

To date, my priorities have been to embed the existing DHR process, progress reviews, respond to the recommendations arising from those reviews, and ensure that learning is shared effectively across agencies and wider society. Further investment from the Executive and relevant agencies would be necessary before there was an extension to include domestic abuse-related deaths by suicide. That in no way diminishes the importance of domestic abuse-related suicides, and the families and communities who have been left devastated by those deaths remain firmly in my thoughts. Rather, it highlights the additional complexity of such cases and the need to ensure that any future expansion of the DHR model is robust, properly resourced and, crucially, capable of delivering meaningful learning.

My officials continue to maintain regular communication with colleagues from other UK jurisdictions, monitoring their procedures, practice and emerging learning. My Department remains committed to continually improving the current model and to strengthening the positive impact of DHRs across all agencies, including health and social care trusts, emergency services, the police and wider society.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra.

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

As I think the Minister is saying, the links between domestic abuse and suicide are well established. I argue that there is still a case for expanding domestic homicide reviews to include deaths by suicide. The real argument that the Minister has given is about resource. However, she also mentioned expertise. Surely, expertise and experience have been gained over the past 10 years in England and Wales, where they have expanded the legislation. Therefore, if it is — I do not want to say "only" a matter of resource, because, of course, it affects the —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Get to the point, Mr Kelly. It is Question Time.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Minister knows how important this is, so will she move forward with the scoping exercise as quickly as possible?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are two separate issues. The first is whether there is the capacity in the Department to undertake the scoping exercise itself, because that would be an extensive piece of work. Obviously, the Member is aware of the constrained nature of the resources within which I have to operate. Furthermore, the domestic homicide regime itself is embedding now. We have commissioned 27 reviews, and seven have reported. It is important that we focus our resources on trying to ensure that any learning from those reviews is embedded before we take on new pieces of work.

It is about more than just resources, though. Determining a clear causative link between domestic abuse and suicide is often highly complex. Establishing a clear, demonstrable link between domestic abuse and suicide can be extremely difficult. Unlike with domestic homicide, where a cause of death is directly attributable to another individual, domestic abuse-related suicides will often, but not always, involve multiple intersecting factors, whether that be mental ill health, previous trauma, substance misuse or broader personal or social pressures. Determining whether domestic abuse was the primary contributing factor can therefore be very difficult. That has actually been the finding in cases that have gone through the process in England and Wales. We recognise that it is a challenge. We would still like to learn from the domestic homicide review process and look at including suicide in that. However, we have to do so in a very careful and measured way.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

What progress has been made since domestic homicide reviews were implemented? How does that impact on the potential to include suicides?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Twenty-eight domestic homicide reviews have been commissioned, and seven have been completed and published on the DOJ website. Learning from those has driven significant improvements across agencies. The Department continues to embed that learning in its practice.

In response to identified learning, we have also delivered public awareness campaigns on things such as non-fatal strangulation, aligned with the commencement of the new offence. That included a three-week TV campaign, a new nidirect information page and engagement with victims' groups during its development. There has also been an increased emphasis on promoting the domestic violence and abuse disclosure scheme (DVADS). The PSNI and my Department now routinely include information about the scheme in domestic abuse-related media releases. As a key safeguarding mechanism, DVADS supports individuals to make informed decisions about relationships, and the Department takes every opportunity to make people aware of it.

Work is ongoing to replace the multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC) with a new perpetrator-focused arrangement, and there has been increased investment in behaviour change programmes. As part of the review process, we are looking very carefully at the right time to include within its remit suicide that has been driven by domestic homicide and at the resources that would be required.

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

3. Mr McNulty asked the Minister of Justice to outline the number of criminal justice cases that are unable to proceed at present due to the dispute with members of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) over Crown Court legal aid fees. (AQO 3232/22-27)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

11. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Justice when her Department plans for courts to be back to normal operation in light of the dispute with members of the Criminal Bar Association over Crown Court legal aid fees. (AQO 3240/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will address questions 3 and 11 together as they speak to the same issue.

As I have said many times, the impact of the CBA service withdrawal is significant, and it will resonate for some time and cause further delays in the system. According to our most recent data, 965 cases have been impacted on since 5 January: 195 trials, 469 arraignments and 301 plea and sentencing hearings.

The number of victims, witnesses and defendants affected will obviously be higher, and the impact on some will be incalculable. I have had the opportunity to hear directly from many victims and their families, and, while I have been humbled by their resilience, I am deeply concerned about the added stress and uncertainty that the withdrawal is causing to those who are already suffering unimaginable trauma and loss. I continue to hope that the CBA will take cognisance of that impact and return to full service. Leveraging suffering serves no purpose.

I have already shown that I am open to action where evidence allows, and I have initiated a further independent accelerated review to allow remaining issues of concern to be addressed at pace. The review, which commenced on Friday, is expected to be completed no later than 27 April. It provides yet another opportunity for the CBA and its solicitor colleagues in the Solicitors’ Criminal Bar Association (SCBA) to make their case. That is the proper forum for evidencing the necessity of any action, and I trust that it will soon lead to a resolution and a return to normal operation. I will keep the Chamber updated in due course.

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

Given the length of time that the dispute has been going on without resolution, when can the public expect it to be resolved? When will the Minister agree to positive mediation with the Criminal Bar Association to resolve the dispute for the benefit of all concerned, not least those who have been directly impacted on, particularly victims of crime and their families?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In my original answer, I set out exactly what we are doing to try to resolve the dispute, and we have invested heavily in that accelerated review. That is proceeding with the agreement of the CBA, the SCBA and others who are party to the issue. I am afraid that I cannot provide the Member with a timeline, because it is not me who is withholding service; it is the CBA. I encourage him to ask the CBA when its members intend to return to work. I am keen to see them returning now because, to be honest, their attendance or non-attendance at work will not influence the outcome of the accelerated review.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I do not know what happened with the Mitchell case in Ballymena, but I was glad to see that there was some movement from those involved. However, that leaves many others behind. Minister, I am not blaming you in any way for that. However, if the review fails to get the answers that they wish for, what other opportunities will be open to you as Minister to try to move things forward to restore the public's confidence in the justice system?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Member is right. There have been some fairly horrific cases that have been released only one at a time thus far. I do not think that any of us believes that that is fair on all the other cases that are in the queue or helpful for speeding up justice, which is something that we are all committed to seeing happen.

Neither we nor the CBA want to be in this position again. I hope that, in future, we will have better working relations, and I am, as always, optimistic about the potential outcome of the accelerated review. I am open to listening to the arguments if they are made with robust evidence in place. For my part, however, I have to consider what steps I can take to ensure that victims and witnesses cannot again be used as leverage in any circumstance in such cases. There is a range of actions that can be taken to that end, including the use of alternative delivery models, which I have mentioned previously in the Chamber. Consideration of those is at a very early stage, so I cannot really say any more on that at this point, but I will provide updates as work progresses. The important thing for me is that, from this point onwards, it will not be for the CBA to decide which cases get a derogation. Rather, where there is an urgency to a case, it will be a decision for the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). That is the right place for that decision to reside.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, what contingency measures are you putting in place to ensure that any backlog of cases can be picked up at pace?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Given the resources that are available to the Department, the truth is that there is very little by way of contingency measures that we can put in place to secure recovery of the backlog. When we met before, and I addressed the issues, I made the point that the money that is being spent on, for example, the accelerated review comes out of exactly the same pot that we use to deliver any catch-up to deal with the delays. The point that I have made all along is that the SCBA has continued to work throughout the process . It has continued to make progress on the issues that it has raised with the Department.

The CBA, however, has withdrawn its services. It has not made the same progress, because it has not provided the same level of information and evidence. Were it to provide me with the same level of information and evidence, its members could return to full work tomorrow. Doing that would not influence the outcome of the accelerated review. All that its withdrawal of services does is cause harm to the justice system and draw resources away from something that, I believe, would better suit the CBA, the SCBA and the members of the public who rely on the justice system progressing at speed.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Has the Minister ever informed the House that, on 13 January 2026, there was an opportunity to come to an arrangement with the Criminal Bar Association on the accelerated review? I welcome the fact that the CBA is now dealing with priority cases, but an offer was made to it on 13 January, and it was happy to take on priority cases at that point. The Minister insisted, however, that that could happen only if it fully resumed its work. We therefore had weeks of missed opportunities to deal with those priority cases.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I have not informed the Chamber of that, because it is factually inaccurate. It is true to say that the offer of an accelerated review was contingent on a return to work, but that was rejected out of hand by the CBA. The only red line that I have had in this process is that the CBA would no longer decide which cases were a priority and which were not. When we got together in the wake of the meeting with Chloe Mitchell's family, which the Member attended, we were able to agree that that was and would be the case. That is why the taking on of priority cases has now been instituted.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Minister, will you please provide some detail on the derogation process?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The PPS has reviewed and will continue to review cases based on the needs of victims and witnesses. That will change over time, as new issues and new vulnerabilities emerge. What is critical, and what informed my decision to commence the accelerated review, is that the PPS will now have sole responsibility for determining the high-priority cases that will proceed. I said to Members before that I believed it to be a direct conflict of interest for anyone in the CBA to be making such decisions, given that its members will often be representing defendants in the same cases. Although I would of course expect them to recuse themselves from that immediate decision, I still believe that it is inappropriate for the CBA to play any role in the process. The situation will therefore remain fluid and responsive to the needs of those who are affected by service withdrawal.

My focus is not on the derogations and the interim measures that we can take, albeit they are important. Rather, it is on trying to get to a full restoration of services. Given that, for example, the CBA agreed to a process as recently as 8 December 2025 and said that it was happy to follow it through to a conclusion, I do not accept that it cannot return to full service now and continue with the negotiations. As I said, the negotiations will not be influenced by whether the CBA is or is not at work. The only impact of its members being at work or not being at work will be on the families who are waiting to have their cases heard.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

4. Ms Mulholland asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the implementation of the recommendations in the Gillen review report on the law and procedures in serious sexual offences in Northern Ireland. (AQO 3233/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Numerical reporting on the number or percentage of completed Gillen recommendations does not convey the true scale of positive change in outcomes for victims. However, I am pleased to report that 181, which is 72%, of the 253 Gillen review recommendations are now assessed as complete, with a further 24 — that is 9% — partially complete, meaning that some provision is in place but that further work will be required to establish longer-term mainstream service provision.

I have prioritised the recommendations that deliver meaningful improvements for victims of sexual crime, including access to free legal advice for all victims of serious sexual offences through the sexual offences legal advisers (SOLA) and children’s SOLA schemes; and establishing new remote evidence centres, where victims can give their best evidence from a secure and comfortable facility away from the court building. I am encouraged that the conviction rate in remote evidence cases among domestic abuse contest cases stands at over 90%. I have also prioritised the recommendations on measures to reduce delay, including committal reform, which means that victims are no longer required to give oral evidence at the committal hearing. Supporting the ongoing delivery of the under-13 and under-16 protocol is also significantly reducing the time taken to deal with cases involving young victims. There has been significant improvement to disclosure and achieving best evidence (ABE) procedures; better training to enable front-line staff to adopt a trauma-informed approach with victims; and new legislation to exclude the public from court in serious sexual offence trials.

Today, in line with another Gillen recommendation, I have launched a social media campaign aimed at challenging rape myths and other damaging misconceptions about sexual crime. Rape myths create shame and self-blame and, in many cases, prevent people from reporting those horrific crimes, allowing perpetrators to escape justice. We all have a role to play in challenging those myths through education, accountability and cultural change, and I hope that the campaign will play an important part in changing the public narrative.

I remain fully committed to delivering the remaining accepted recommendations in the coming months. I plan to introduce new legislation to clarify the right of complainants in serious sexual offence cases to independent legal representation —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister, thank you.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. Clearly, there is so much to talk about that you ran out of time. Can you give me a wee bit more detail on the rape myths campaign that you referenced?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I can indeed, and I could talk about a number of the other issues, too. I plan to deliver independent legal representation for specific pre-trial applications; to publish media guidance to encourage a trauma-informed, victim-centric approach to reporting sexual crime; and to consider options for a Barnahus-informed facility.

Unfortunately, rape and sexual assault myths are still widespread, and they can be a deterrent to people coming forward and disclosing. In the report on how we handle sexual offences, Sir John Gillen highlighted the fact that rape myths represent some of the greatest impediments to justice for all victims and survivors of domestic and sexual abuse but especially women and girls. We have been working alongside partners such as the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), Victim Support, Nexus, Women's Aid and academics who have expertise in the field. We have developed a series of graphics to challenge those misconceptions. The graphics will be issued through my Department's social media channels and will then be shared by our partners through their social media channels. Importantly, CCEA and the Department of Education have also agreed to support the campaign and make those resources available to teachers through the relationships and sexuality education (RSE) hub. Challenging rape myths is essential if we want to build a society where survivors are heard and supported free from shame and stigma. The social media campaign will shine a light on the facts, counter long-standing misconceptions and help to change our public narrative.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, ending sexual offences forms a major part of the Executive's ending violence against women and girls strategy. Can you give me an update on your Department's work on the strategy?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I have already outlined a considerable amount of the work that we have done around the Gillen review. In addition, we recognise that, whilst not all offences against women and girls are domestic offences and that not all domestic offence victims are women and girls, there is a reinforcing overlap. Therefore, we have done work in that space jointly with the Health Minister to produce the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. We are doing work around reinforcing protections for victims and witnesses, particularly those who are vulnerable, and the victims and witnesses Bill will reflect that. We have also undertaken a lot of research into correlation between domestic abuse and other violence in society, which has been helpful in shining a light on some of the areas where improvement can be made. We have been able to deliver in a number of areas. Not everything that we will deliver, however, will have the kind of upstream impact that, for example, the busting of rape myths will have. On many occasions, we are dealing with people who have already been victimised. The purpose of the Executive Office strategy was to ensure that people would move upstream and to look at how we could prevent those things from happening. Many of those actions will not necessarily fall to the Department of Justice, but where we can feed in to those and provide background and evidence to move them forward, we will, of course, play our full part.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

5. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the speeding up justice programme. (AQO 3234/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The speeding up justice programme is a five-year programme of work driven by the Criminal Justice Board and aimed at reducing avoidable delay across the criminal justice system. The programme is part of the Executive's Programme for Government delivery, specifically with regard to the safer communities priority and underpinned by the reform and transformation of public services priority.

The programme comprises five projects: out-of-court disposals; early engagement; committal reform; remit of the Magistrates' Court; and digital. The early engagement and out-of-court disposals projects are supported by £20·5 million of transformation funding.

Work on out-of-court disposals is advancing at pace, and I hope to bring forward secondary legislation on that in the coming months that should see expanded powers for police officers to deal with lower-level offences by way of penalty notices. That will help to divert cases that involve lower-level offending away from prosecution through the courts, where they are currently attracting only monetary fines, and ensure that finite criminal justice resources are used effectively.

Building on the first phase of committal reform, work is progressing on the next phase — direct committal — which I plan to implement in November 2026. That will allow the most-serious cases to progress more quickly to Crown Court. That is supported by early engagement, which is exploring opportunities for early engagement between police, prosecution and defence so that cases move faster through the system.

Work is progressing on a number of initiatives, including measures to improve file quality and taking learning from the better case management processes used in England and Wales. I am progressing work on the remit of the Magistrates' Court project, which is exploring options to expand the jurisdiction of Magistrates' Courts, enabling cases to be handled in a more proportionate manner and helping to reduce backlogs in the court system.

All the projects will be supported by digital initiatives, which can help to make the projects more sustainable in the long term. Taken collectively, the programme should rebalance resources, where lower-level offending will be dealt with outside formal court processes, releasing much-needed resources to deal with the most serious offending.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Since coming to the Assembly, I have taken a great deal of interest in the speeding up justice programme. Will you provide more detail on the out-of-court disposal work that you and your Department are doing?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Out-of-court disposals are part of the Programme for Government commitment and are central to tackling delay in the criminal justice system, which is under significant pressure due to years of underfunding. Out-of-court disposals have been recognised by Lord Leveson as a central measure to reduce demand on the criminal courts, and stabilise the system, which is at risk of collapse, offering a far faster and more proportionate and cost-effective response to lower-level offending whilst improving victim satisfaction and creating opportunities for early rehabilitation. Out-of-court disposals are long-standing and essential tools to help to divert appropriate cases that involve low-level offending away from prosecution through the courts and ensure that resources are used well.

To deal most swiftly with serious cases that are heard in the Crown Court, including murders, serious sexual offence cases and others, we need to create capacity across the system and free up police, prosecutors and courts. It will be vital, therefore, that cases are dealt with proportionately, prosecuted at the right court tier or, if appropriate, dealt with through out-of-court disposal. The measures are not about leniency. They are about delivering the same outcomes but through a shorter measure. Most of the cases that we are talking about for out-of-court disposal will be those that would receive similar outcomes — that is, a monetary penalty — when they go through the courts. In order to get to that point, however, much more resource will have been used by police, prosecutors and the courts.

It is important that we are able to get out-of-court disposals progressed because that will, ultimately, underpin much of the rest of the work that we do, and it is our justification for the application and bid to the transformation fund.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I welcome the five strands of speeding up justice. Will the Minister throw some light on the £20·5 million transformation money received and what impact that is having to date?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Significant progress has already been made, but we are in a difficult position because the withdrawal of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) from cases has been, if you like, acting contrary to our intentions. However, we have been looking carefully and, of course, there is much more to be done. We made a 7·8% reduction in case-processing times across 2023-24 and another 0·5% across 2024-25. That is something positive that we have been able to deliver.

The Criminal Justice Board is also giving careful consideration to the development of formal targets for reducing delay so that we can provide those measurables. A range of options has been explored to determine how system-wide targets can be approached and derived. Defining what measures we should monitor is straightforward, but agreeing what meaningful targets look like is less straightforward, so we are still working on that.

In line with the public transformation board funding, a range of action-based targets has been set. At present, as I said, we are focusing on the development of out-of-court disposals. After that, we will look at the Magistrates' Court and then at some of the other measures that I mentioned earlier.

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

Minister, the speeding up justice programme will increase the number of cases being dealt with, but can you give an assurance that it will not diminish the quality of justice that people receive?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I give that assurance. We are looking at particular cohorts of cases for which, at the moment, the normal, most likely penalty would be monetary. Allowing the PSNI to deliver that as a penalty notice rather than have to go through the courts and prosecutors in order to get, in essence, the same outcome will free up significant resources. Lord Leveson's study demonstrated that the public were happier because they saw justice being delivered more swiftly. That also allows for additional rehabilitation opportunities for the individual and ensures that, if somebody already has a penalty notice, they cannot benefit from a second one. If somebody reoffends in short measure, they will end up going through the courts. Crucially, if they do not reoffend, we can keep them out of the justice system and, hopefully, avoid problems that we might otherwise have with desistance.

The key for me is the outcomes and the satisfaction of victims. In many cases where it takes a long time for the courts to get to the point of giving out a monetary penalty, that seems to be unsatisfactory.

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

6. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Justice, in light of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal judgements in the cases of McCaffrey, Birney and Kearney, to outline any steps her Department will take to protect the freedom of the press. (AQO 3235/22-27)

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

13. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Justice to outline any action she has taken to ascertain the number of journalists that were subject to surveillance by the PSNI or MI5 in the past 10 years. (AQO 3242/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 13 together.

Freedom of the press is fundamental to a democratic society, allowing independent scrutiny of those in power and giving the public reliable, fact-based information. I therefore share the concerns raised around the surveillance of journalists. However, the UK security services and the oversight of such surveillance are excepted matters and fall outside the purview of my role as Minister of Justice.

I recognise the importance of the issues raised in the McCullough review, particularly those relating to the protection of press freedom and the oversight of covert surveillance authorisations involving journalists. The operational responsibility for covert surveillance lies with the Chief Constable. I note that the Chief Constable acknowledged that the McCullough review identified concerns about specific authorisations and has committed to improving processes and addressing inconsistencies.

The PSNI has provided assurances that comprehensive and robust measures have now been implemented in the system to prevent a recurrence of similar failures. The revised system is scheduled to undergo review as part of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office inspection in 2026. I also note that the PSNI has enhanced the central record of surveillance authorisations to provide greater transparency to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office and its inspections.

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

Thank you Minister. You will have seen the outworkings of the Investigatory Powers tribunal in London and the revelation that thousands of messages from the journalist Vincent Kearney were intercepted by the PSNI.

I know that the Minister believes strongly in the freedom of the press. Acknowledging the operational independence of the PSNI, does she agree that the repeated revelations about the PSNI's encroaching on the freedom of the press by monitoring journalists, including Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey, have contributed to a lack of confidence in the PSNI; that addressing that will be part of rebuilding confidence in the PSNI among certain communities; and therefore that —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

OK, Mr O'Toole. You are getting into a speech. I remind Members that the Kearney case is still live. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I express my solidarity with Vincent Kearney and the other journalists who were spied on. Much is always made about the PSNI being the most accountable police force around. Therefore, it is astounding to hear that the Minister of Justice is effectively powerless to do anything about the PSNI spying on journalists. Minister, have you contacted the Chief Constable to raise your concerns about the issue?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I set out in my original answer that I had discussed with the Chief Constable the McCullough review and the importance of the work that was done. The Member has to understand that some matters are reserved, and national security issues are reserved matters and do not fall within my remit. It does not mean that I do not care about those matters, because, as Mr O'Toole indicated, they have an impact on community confidence. I take interest in what the PSNI does and in its being respected across the community; that is an important part of my role. However, it is not for me to sanction or oversee the use of investigatory powers, particularly in Vincent Kearney's case, which actually involved MI5 and the security services, as was found by the inquiry. It is important for me to respect the work that the Policing Board is doing on its oversight of the PSNI, which is done on a cross-community and fully inclusive basis.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now move to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Justice to provide an update on the timetable for bringing into operational effect the new sentencing Bill, which includes Charlotte's law and the increased maximum penalties for causing death by dangerous driving. (AQT 2131/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Bill was introduced last week. With the Speaker’s agreement, the Bill will come before the House for Second Reading around the start of the week after next. Obviously, you will be briefed about the Bill's content as a member of the Committee in the interim. As the Member has rightly pointed out, the Bill will cover issues in so-called no-body murder cases, such as Charlotte Murray's case, which is better known as "Charlotte's law". It will also include extensions of the penalties for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury under the influence of substances. It is important that those matters are taken forward, but there are other key pieces of legislation that fall within the Bill, and I look forward to working with the Member and the Committee to take the Bill forward.

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

Given the expectations raised with victims' families, what steps are being taken to ensure that the preparations are made and the resources are in place so that the reforms deliver a real impact from day one?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are a number of those. For example, sentencing for dangerous driving will be on day two, which is the day after the day after Royal Assent, when a law becomes effective, so it will become effective on day two. Some of the other measures included in the Bill, as the Member will be briefed, will have commencement clauses attached, but the vast majority will be commenced at the point when the legislation receives Royal Assent. I cannot give any assurances to the families at this stage. I have done my job in bringing the Bill to the House, and I know that the Member and the Committee will do their job and ensure that the timetable meets the expectations of the public going forward.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

T2. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister of Justice whether, even though terrorism legislation is largely reserved, she has plans to address sentencing for terrorism offences, given that a man from Lurgan was given a sentence of five years and three months for trying to obtain gun parts, while another man was given an 18-month jail term for planting bombs. (AQT 2132/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Terrorism offences are entirely a reserved matter. I cannot change them with legislation here, but I am sure the Member will be happy to raise it with her colleagues in Westminster. There are sentencing and policing Bills going forward there, and I am sure they will be able to introduce amendments to make any changes she wishes to see being made.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, are there any guidelines you can set in your Department to emphasise the importance of such offences and how seriously they are taken in Northern Ireland?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Certainly, by talking about the issue in the House and communicating our concerns, we can convey a public sentiment about the importance of dealing with such offences appropriately and ensuring that the sentencing is at an appropriate level. However, ultimately, the judiciary is independent of the Department, and sentencing guidelines will be set by the Lady Chief Justice. Even if we had a Northern Ireland sentencing council, it would not be an area where such a devolved sentencing council or I could enter, because it is not a devolved matter. It would be for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Westminster to bring forward any changes that they wish to make to the overarching guidance on terrorism offences.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

T3. Mr Harvey asked the Minister of Justice, after noting that she would be aware of the difficulties experienced by holders of firearms licences in accessing the PSNI's digital system, to call on the PSNI to make available a non-digital alternative for individuals who are unable to access the system. (AQT 2133/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

My understanding is that the PSNI portal has been in operation for some time and is a cost- and resource-saving measure. I also understand that it is possible to get assistance with access to the portal if required. Ultimately, however, how the PSNI receives applications and dispenses licences is an operational matter, so it would be for the Member, if he wishes, to approach the Chief Constable on behalf of his constituents. Other Members have raised the matter with me, but my understanding is that the majority of applications go through smoothly and that the issue is, perhaps, more about the volume of applications and the length of time that it takes to process them.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her answer. The matter appears to affect our rural areas and our farmers most, so will the Minister have a conversation about it with the AERA Minister?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I know that Andrew is aware of the matter, and I have raised other firearms licensing issues with him. However, as I said, when it comes to how the PSNI operates the system, such issues ultimately fall to the Chief Constable. The portal is in place to ease the way for people to put in applications, but I know that not everybody is as digitally enhanced, perhaps, as they would need to be to manage that. However, the portal is meant to be simplified so that people can easily access it. If anybody has difficulties with their application, I am sure that a kindly MLA would be more than happy to help them.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

T4. Mr Martin asked the Minister of Justice why she did not consider including in the Justice Bill provision for revising guidance on the setting of bail conditions by the courts. (AQT 2134/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

We cannot do everything in one piece of legislation. That legislation has its roots in 2019, when the original consultation was conducted. At that time, we looked carefully at what would be required to update our legislation. Sadly, it has taken us until now to have stability in the Assembly at the same time as the legislation has been produced.

Other issues will arise. For example, in recent months, Members have brought to me other changes to sentencing that they would like to see, which has confirmed my view that we need a new sentencing review. There will be an opportunity for the Member to feed his proposal into that review. However, I am conscious of the need to keep the sentencing review narrow. I do not want it to become a review of sentencing, bail and other court processes, because that would widen its scope, and it would lose focus. I have been criticised for introducing miscellaneous provisions Bills, because they are so wide in scope. One such Bill is in train; we are trying to keep the other two as laser-focused as we can.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, I asked the question because the man accused of causing the death of my constituent Jaidyn Rice was granted bail despite being subject to an interim driving ban. Given that the amendments that you have referenced are wide-ranging, would you accept an amendment to the Justice Bill that would provide courts with much clearer guidance on the setting of bail conditions?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It would be important for any Member who decided to legislate in that space to undertake a full consultation, particularly with the judiciary, because none of us would want to impinge on judicial independence or encroach on a judge's discretion. To be clear, the granting of bail is not a measure of whether a crime is serious; it is simply a measure of the other issues, such as whether the judge believes that the person is likely to interfere with witnesses, to abscond or to commit further offences while on bail. Those are the issues that will influence the outcome of bail applications. A person is innocent until proven guilty — when proven guilty, they will be sentenced — so it will vary greatly.

We have a problem in Northern Ireland that I would caution the Member about before he goes down the route of tabling an amendment; however, if he does so, I would be happy to consider that and to give him a straight answer on it when I have it in front of me.

The problem is that we have significantly higher levels of remand in this part of the UK than is the case anywhere else in these islands. The pressure that that places on the justice system is not insignificant. It also challenges us, in that we cannot rehabilitate people while they are on remand, because here is no compulsion for them to engage with the regime. The result of that can be that people are released on time served after they go through the court system, which feels like a slap in the face for victims but also means that we have done none of the rehabilitation work that we would have liked to do. I therefore caution against thinking that remand is a silver bullet for the wider discontent over individual decisions that may be made around bail.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

T5. Mr Gaston asked the Minister of Justice, given that recently, at the Committee for the Executive Office, the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse highlighted the fact that cases of abuse have been, and will continue to be, missed because inquiries have focused on the setting in which abuse occurred rather than on the victims themselves, whether she agrees with Ms Ryan that Northern Ireland needs to undertake a prevalence survey of childhood abuse, similar to the work that is being undertaken in Scotland, in order to establish the true scale of abuse, and whether she will commit to progressing such a survey through her Department. (AQT 2135/22-27)