Northern Ireland Assembly, 21 September 2026

608 contributions from 69 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

A few issues arose last week in my absence, and I will be writing to Members from a number of parties about their behaviour in the House, in particular about some exchanges that took place within the scope of the Second Stage debate on the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill. Members will know that a Second Stage debate needs to relate to the Bill and that they must craft their remarks to comply with that.

I also remind Members of the clarity that Deputy Speaker Blair provided to the House last week when he said that the Bill had 11 clauses and that the debate should relate to its principles. That is what the Second Stage debate is. The Bill includes references to gender identity. Discussion of gender identity is therefore permissible in the context of the Bill.

Some Members may have attempted to raise issues about the position of other parties rather than about the Bill. A number of Members discussed gender identity without intervention from the Chair. The position that gender identity can be discussed in the debate on the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill is therefore clear, as Deputy Speaker Blair outlined. However, Members need to comply with the normal rules about linking their remarks to the Bill in front of them.

Some Members sought to challenge the Chair. Some Members sought to use language in the House about other Members that was entirely inappropriate. Some Members published exchanges with the Deputy Speaker. None of those things were appropriate. I will write to each of those Members on that.

On another matter, last week, the Justice Minister responded to a question for urgent oral answer in the House. It appears that the information provided to the House at that time was not fully accurate. It is the responsibility of any Minister or Member to inform the Assembly and correct the record at the earliest opportunity if the Assembly was told something, even inadvertently, that subsequently is discovered to be inaccurate. Over the weekend, the Justice Minister was in touch with my office to make arrangements to make a statement to the House on those matters today, and I welcome that. However, I point out, particularly to officials, that I do not expect any Minister to be put in a position where they are exposed in the Assembly because they have not been given full information. The House should expect that, if a Minister is called to address a matter in the Assembly, that Minister is fully and accurately briefed by their Department so that the Assembly gets a full picture.

On the progress of legislation, debates continue, and the Business Committee has put arrangements in place for debates to be concluded this week and next. Some of the provisions brought forward by the Committee on Procedures on Members' Bills have been effective. While much will depend on the length of each Bill's Committee Stage, we are on course to have all Second Stage debates on Members' Bills completed two or three months earlier than was the case in the previous mandate.

Members' Statements

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I return again to the subject of the proposed Orange Order parade down the Garvaghy Road. In the past 24 hours or so, residents' groups from across the North that have previously been involved in issues around Orange Order marches and band parades have issued a statement in solidarity with the residents of the Garvaghy Road. That statement illustrates once again that it is not a local issue, as some would have us believe or would hope, that can be dealt with without consequences for other parading issues. The residents are clear in their statement that they express solidarity with the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition (GRRC) and the residents of that area and that they see it as an issue that impacts across the North. They also express their concerns that there may be an intention among some people in political unionism, the Orange Order and marching bands to reopen what were once seen to be settled parades across the North. I hope that that is not the case, because those of us who have experience of the past understand that the resolutions to parading issues across the North were hard won. They came about through accommodations between residents and the loyal orders and bands at local level. They are of precious value and have benefited us all in moving forward.

I appeal once again to those who are behind the proposed parade to stop what they are doing; to allow the past 28 years of relative peace to be protected and advanced; and not to reopen old wounds. There is no requirement for an Orange Order march down the Garvaghy Road or to open up parading issues across the North. The 11 residents' groups that have made the statement are clear in their views. There can be no return to the mistakes of the past.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

It is with major concern that I note a serious matter of public safety and environmental impact in Newry. Last week, a serious sewage overflow occurred in Second Avenue in which a significant amount of raw sewage flooded that residential area. The scenes were deeply concerning for all who were impacted, with sewage flooding the pavements and roadways and then, alarmingly, cascading into the storm drain network in significant quantities. It is not the first event of its kind. I am grateful to Northern Ireland Water for its prompt action, at my request, to visit the area, tend to the problem and conduct a clean-up operation. That is very much appreciated.

It goes without saying that nobody deserves to live with the constant worry of sewage overflow. When, like in that instance, the overflow is substantial and reaches the Department for Infrastructure's storm drain network, it is not only a serious public health problem but a serious environmental problem.

It is very clear that there is a dereliction of duty on the matter, and given that Sinn Féin holds the Infrastructure Ministry — indeed, the Minister is a Sinn Féin Newry MLA — I can see why residents are rightly fed up with the inaction on that troubling issue. I, on the other hand, will continue to represent everyone in Newry and Armagh.

Residents, you are being failed by a Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister and, sadly, by Northern Ireland Water, who, collectively, have not put a stop to that pollution. Residents, you are paying the price in hazardous inconvenience, but the environment is also paying a price in untreated sewage reaching our waterways. Consider the complexity and cost of a consent-to-discharge process for a private dwelling, which must, by law, avoid exactly the scenes in Second Avenue and the areas around it. A homeowner has to spend a considerable amount of money on obtaining permission, buying a new septic tank, feeding it with electricity and servicing it yearly, all to avoid untreated sewage reaching our waterways. The rules do not seem to apply to DFI.

I was again concerned to note that, yesterday, only a couple of days after the previous incident, another overflow situation occurred — this time, worryingly, on higher ground on the green area on the Camlough Road. I contacted Northern Ireland Water again last night, and, hopefully, that issue can be dealt with today. The problem will only be resolved if the will to fix it is there, but I detect no will. To continue my lobbying, I have tabled an Assembly question for written answer asking Minister Kimmins to detail any action being taken to address the prevalence and impact of those overflows. The partnership agreement between the Department for Infrastructure and Northern Ireland Water states very clearly that both organisations must seek to "resolve issues quickly and constructively". The time to act is now. The fact that this is happening repeatedly shows that those with the power to solve the problem are abdicating their responsibilities and adopting a reactive, not a proactive, approach. That needs to change.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

The unacceptable inequalities affecting cancer patients in Northern Ireland is an issue that has been further highlighted in the past week after the news that the breast cancer drug Enhertu has become available to patients in England. I congratulate all who campaigned for the past two years to make that drug available in England and Wales. When it is prescribed to eligible patients, Enhertu can extend the life of someone who has terminal breast cancer by an average of almost seven months, but there have been reports of people living up to three years. Whilst seven months may not seem like a very long time, it is everything to someone who has been given a diagnosis of terminal cancer. The fact that people are receiving the drug across the UK but not in Northern Ireland comes as another blow to patients here.

Following the decision to recommend the use of Enhertu for HER2-low metastatic breast cancer, we need that urgent clarity and action from the Department of Health and the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG). The website for the Northern Ireland Formulary, which everyone can access on their phone, outlines that, following the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, it is available in Northern Ireland because they have already calculated the cost on a case-by-case basis. We need clarity from the Department of Health and the Minister on that. This is not the first time that we have seen drugs added to the Northern Ireland Formulary that mean that they technically should be available in Northern Ireland yet people are not getting them. We know that NICE sets the guidelines, but, because of resources, the Department of Health and SPPG often diverge from what is available, whether that is because there is no specialised nurse to administer the treatment or because of ongoing treatment plans. That does not make it any less unacceptable.

My colleague Sorcha Eastwood and I have been working on the issue of inequalities across cancer care in the UK and have written to the Minister of Health to ask him to outline that. We hope that he takes the opportunity during Question Time today to confirm that the issue will be resolved as soon as possible. It is not the only issue, and breast cancer is not the only cancer. There is also ovarian cancer and prostate cancer. Young people's cancer fund — we do not have a specific one here for the local scheme. Another issue is the cost of travel to hospital for treatment; there is no similar scheme here in Northern Ireland. Cancer patients are consistently being let down. Alliance will continue to advocate for all cancer patients here in Northern Ireland, because they are of equal value and worth as any patient across the UK.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

The fundamental purpose of the justice system is public protection. Our justice system has fundamentally failed to discharge that solemn duty in the case of Gary Anderson, a dangerous convicted murderer, who is on the run. My thoughts today are with the family of Karol Kelly, brutally murdered. Not only have they been bereaved, having lost a loved one, but they have been re-traumatised by the catastrophic errors in the case. I have not yet heard the leadership that is required to tackle the issue. Just last week, I raised my concerns that, in the decision that was made, while substantively correct that this man should never be released on day release, there were procedural flaws that did not make it resilient to legal challenge. I was told by the Justice Minister that there was nothing to see here. It turns out that that is exactly what the issue is.

This is the highest-risk area of justice, when you are making decisions on whether someone is suitable for release on to the streets who has committed a violent murder. It seems that the wrong score was listed in the forms. When the Prison Service was asked when the last review was done, it said that it took place in 2026, but then it could not find any record of that review. Vital information was not recorded in the governor's decision, such as the fact that the prisoner had failed two mandatory drug tests — he had refused to do them. That would have strengthened the decision to refuse the application. And then the catastrophic failure: when the judge said that the decision was not procedurally sound and invited the governor, via the legal representative, to remake that decision, that did not happen. Either the Prison Service did not take up the invitation or the departmental solicitor did not pass on that request. That led to the inevitable decision that a dangerous man was released with a civilian chaperone with no training and no handcuffs. We now have a dangerous prisoner on the run. Why on earth was a member of the Northern Ireland Prison Service not at the court with the departmental solicitor in order to close the communication gap? It was inevitable that there was going to be a to and fro between the prison and the court on a Sunday afternoon. There are serious lessons to be learned.

My message to the on-the-run thug Gary Anderson is this: hand yourself in. If anyone is harbouring him, assisting him or withholding information about him, they are committing a crime. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and an Garda Síochána need to redouble their efforts to get that man behind bars. However, we need real answers from the Justice Minister so that this never happens again. We are here to keep people safe, not the opposite.

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

I do not normally pay all that much attention to the DUP conference. I offer my condolences to my colleagues on the opposite Benches, and I hope that they had an enjoyable and productive weekend. This weekend, however, I could not help but notice some of what was emerging from the DUP conference. Any political party of any stripe is entitled to and should meet to discuss policy, priorities and future plans. We all do that, and my party did it the weekend before last. It is clear that the DUP had a very particular agenda around unionist unity — it is up to version 6.0 or 7.0 — that it is trying to push.

The thing that I want to talk about and which concerns me, however, was not necessarily any DUP politician — although I agreed with virtually none of what they said, they are entitled to meet — but the presence of a Mr Danny Kruger from Reform UK, who was there on Friday night as the keynote speaker. I would have thought that, as many people have said, having sadly been run over by many buses driven by members of the British hard right and having exhausted lots of party funds on Sudocrem for having been burned so many times by political movements led by the British hard right, the DUP would have thought better, but I am afraid not.

There is a serious point here. I am afraid to say that I spent a few minutes reading Mr Kruger's remarks to the DUP conference on Friday night, in which he announced a particular policy for a Reform UK Government. Mr Frew is nodding, so I presume that they would like to see a Reform UK Government; certainly, the DUP invited that man along to speak. Danny Kruger said that, under a Farage-led UK Government, Reform would insist on travel authorisation for any non-UK or Irish national arriving in Dublin Airport and travelling North.

Let us be clear: that is a catastrophic, grotesquely stupid and utterly impractical policy for a number of reasons. First, it would, of course, be a profound violation of the settlement that we have on this island. However, in practical terms, as well as being utterly impossible, it would devastate our economy, including our tourism economy. Where do 70% of the people who come to Northern Ireland arrive? Dublin Airport.

Once again, the geniuses in the DUP are inviting not a hard border on the island of Ireland, which is a fantasy of parts of unionism, but a hard border, which I do not want to see, between Britain and Ireland: another sea border. It would be the worst kind of sea border and one that I, who have spent most of my adult life in Britain and care deeply about those ties, do not want to see, and nor does my party. The DUP, by flirting once again with the English hard right, is bringing that on itself and the rest of us. Since Reform and the DUP seem to be really into nostalgia — old-fashioned, English/British-style nostalgia — let me offer a bit of pop culture nostalgia to colleagues in the DUP once again, since they are going down the same road again. Lads, don't be plonkers all your lives. Don't be plonkers all your lives.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Paul Boggs (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

As a former teacher, I understand completely the invaluable role that classroom assistants play in our schools. Last week, Unison's classroom assistant members gathered in Strabane to highlight the issues that they face. While I could not be at the event, I have supported and continue to support their good work charter campaign. Councillors Brian Harte and Collette McAllister attended and were shocked, to say the least, by the broad issues that classroom assistants spoke to them about.

Unison's good work charter breaks down their concerns, frustrations, everyday experiences and, more important, how, they feel, those would be best addressed. Their asks are not unreasonable. They want to ensure that they have secure, contracted work with fair pay, terms and conditions. They want to feel valued alongside teachers in how vital they are to the classroom, with job descriptions that accurately reflect the work that they do. They want professional development and progression aligned with appropriate recognition of their qualifications and experience. They also want to be involved in the reform of SEN provision, ensuring that their experience in supporting children is reflected in new ways of delivering SEN support. Every MLA across the Assembly will have heard from parents just how invaluable classroom assistants are to their child's learning. As a former teacher, I know how invaluable they are to teaching and to learning.

At last week's meeting, classroom assistants referenced the proposed enhanced support model that could mean in real terms that one-to-one support for pupils could be in jeopardy. Their fear and frustration are focused purely on the loss of support for the young people with whom they work. What has struck me most in engaging with the campaign are the parents from whom I have heard emotional accounts that show that they, too, are fully on board with the need to better value our classroom assistants, because they see first-hand the positive impact that classroom assistants have on their children. Frankly, it is hard to listen to the people who are the backbone of our education system speak of how undervalued they feel, how their year-long pleas for action have not been addressed and how decisions continue to be made over their heads.

The message from classroom assistants, parents and children is loud and clear: the role of classroom assistants is crucial to the development of our children. Our classroom assistants deserve better. The young people whom they support deserve better. I will continue to stand with them every step of the way. Today, I call on the Minister, the Department and the Education Authority to do likewise.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank Matthew O'Toole for being so excited in his contribution when highlighting our excellent DUP conference at the weekend and our good unionist friends in Great Britain.

Fuel prices are shocking. Diesel has hit £2 a litre, and we feel that pain at the pumps, but we can be assured that the rise will affect much more than that. Our hard-pressed working families feel it in their fuel and heating costs. It is also hitting the heart of our economy. Our farmers and fishermen, the backbone of our local agri-food sector, are being hammered once again. Those sectors are heavily reliant on fuel, and soaring costs run the risk of putting them under for good. Our small businesses and local tradesmen are on the road across the Province daily, and they continuously see their profits diminish. The prices that they pay for their fuel have been rocketing since they quoted for jobs. How are they supposed to manage running their businesses? For transport businesses, including hauliers, it is devastating for an industry that is already under pressure, with a large coach or HGV taking around 400 litres of diesel. The recent increase could see them hitting an extra £180 on average for a tank of diesel. That is unmanageable.

People do not often think of the bigger impact of the pressures on the haulage sector. It means that less food and fewer supermarket products make it on to our shelves and that more of our restaurants and building suppliers are pressurised when it comes to getting supplies. It further drives up the prices for those who cannot access those materials.

We also have the impact on our public services. Transportation services, including taxis, are contracted on rates that are based on the fuel cost at that time, which may be lower. With those costs escalating, it might be unaffordable to run those businesses. We could have children who might not get to school and patients who might not get to their appointments. We could see pressures on airports, our tourism sector, sports teams and weddings. No aspect of our lives will be unaffected by it.

We need to see an intervention on the escalating fuel costs now. They are crippling our households, businesses, sole traders, farmers and fishermen. It is pressurising our public services. It is felt by every person here. We need to see an extension of the reliefs for hauliers and cuts in fuel duty and taxes on red diesel beyond this year. We need to see further interventions. Action is needed now, before it is too late to recover.

We saw a UK Government intervention on electricity costs, but any support on fuel needs to be direct. It should not have taken a special scheme in Northern Ireland to sort it out. The zero rate on VAT for domestic electricity should have applied automatically. The Windsor framework was a barrier, and the Government need to stand up to the EU on that. We need action on fuel costs, which are crippling everyone. Our DUP MPs will raise that issue at the heart of Westminster, and every MLA should raise it at every opportunity.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

A real and increasing concern for people in Ballymoney relates to traffic congestion and whether our road infrastructure is keeping pace with the changing town. Anyone who tries to travel through Ballymoney at the wrong time of day knows exactly what I mean. At the bottom of Main Street, four roads — Main Street, Castle Street, Meeting House Street and Seymour Street — converge at one crossroads. At peak times, significant tailbacks develop, stretching back along all the roads that lead into the town.

The issue is, however, about more than one junction. Over recent decades, Ballymoney has changed. We have seen considerable housing development to the south of the town, particularly along Bann Road, Bravallen Road and Finvoy Road. There has been further development along Charlotte Street, and more homes are being built on the Knock Road. The way in which people live and work has also changed massively. Ballymoney is increasingly part of a wider commuter belt, with many people regularly travelling into Belfast for work, while choosing to make their home in the town. Whilst that growth is really positive, our infrastructure needs to grow with it.

Along with a local councillor, I, as a local MLA, have been raising that issue with the Department for Infrastructure since I came into this role, yet the situation has not improved. If anything, the pressure on the network has continued to worsen. We regularly raise concerns about congestion on Castle Street, at Gate End, on Milltown Road, on Ballybrakes Road and in that whole part of town. When those routes become congested, we see a knock-on impact on Kilraughts Road and Kirk Road. Increasingly, Ballymoney is being used by through traffic, despite parts of it simply not being designed for the volume of modern traffic that its roads now carry. For residents, it is not an abstract infrastructure debate. It means sitting in traffic while trying to get to work. It means that a short local journey takes so much longer than it should. It means that parents are stuck in congestion during the school run. It means concerns about rat-running and pedestrian safety, especially about whether children are able to safely walk or cycle to and from school. We hear those concerns from residents. That has to help with what happens next.

We need something more than just an isolated intervention. My call to the Infrastructure Minister has been straightforward: commission a strategic review of Ballymoney's transport and road infrastructure. That review should be used to develop, fund and deliver real long-term solutions to the town's congestion, infrastructure pressures and safety concerns. It has to be about future-proofing the town, especially as development grows. I want the Minister to know that we need her to listen to residents, assess the network as a whole and plan for the growth that is already happening.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Today marks the United Nations International Day of Peace. In this society, we all know too well the value of peace and the Good Friday Agreement, all parts of which must be protected and upheld. We also know that peace requires continual, inclusive dialogue, the safeguarding of international law and human rights, and the promotion of Irish neutrality.

Ireland must continue to stand for peace, diplomacy and international law in an increasingly dangerous world. Today, more than five million Palestinians live under occupation, denied fundamental rights and subjected to devastating violence, displacement and dehumanisation. On this International Day of Peace, we must be clear that there can be no meaningful peace without justice, freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people.

In Derry, four people have now been convicted and fined for taking part in a peaceful but unnotified procession in solidarity with Palestine. Whatever about the notification issues, criminalising people for participating in peaceful protests raises serious questions about how we protect the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and expression. The campaign in support of Palestine must intensify. The democratic and human rights of the Palestinian people must be recognised and upheld, and the international community must act in good faith to secure a just and lasting peace.

I acknowledge all those in our communities who continue to raise their voice for Palestine and artists including Macklemore, Kneecap and CMAT who have used their platform to strengthen public solidarity. No person should be punished simply for using their voice in peaceful protests, pickets or performances in support of the rights of the Palestinian people. Justice is the soul of peace, and when people harness their voice, powerful things can happen. If the UN International Day of Peace is to mean anything, Palestinians must be allowed to live free from occupation, in freedom, dignity and peace.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Every weekend, we seem to hear about an Alliance Party disaster or catastrophe, but I ask Members to cast their mind back to when 51 cattle were slaughtered in an open field in full view of the public on the watch of the Alliance Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir. I am glad to report that the DUP tabled a motion of no confidence in the Minister at the behest of the farming community across the country, because of the weight of its concern. I am glad that the TUV signed the motion of no confidence and that the UUP has now signed it. I thank both parties for doing so. There are many farmers in North Antrim who vote for Sinn Féin, but it has yet to sign the motion of no confidence. Sinn Féin may be energised only about unionist Ministers, but surely its voters who are farmers in North Antrim and throughout the Province have been on to Sinn Féin constituency offices, concerned about how the cull could have happened on the Alliance Minister's watch.

I appeal to my colleague in North Antrim the Sinn Féin MLA Philip McGuigan and his party to sign the motion of no confidence without delay. Let us send the message that the farming community of Northern Ireland has delivered loud and clear: the Minister must go.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Last week, I attended the annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Cape Town, South Africa. The themes of the conference were delivering democracy across the Commonwealth nations; the impact of the day-to-day use of AI; the challenges to the international system of trade; and particularly how the rules-based international system is being abused. The conference also concentrated on war in the Horn of Africa; on the horrors of what is happening in Sudan, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; on how the West appears fixated only on Gaza and not on the millions elsewhere facing starvation, actual genocide and sexual violence; and on the scramble for resources that is turning many parts of Africa into warlord fiefdoms, in which the use of child labour and child soldiers is helped by our obsession with the latest technology.

It was, however, the discussions about gender-based violence that really struck home. The thoughts and prayers of every Member should be with the nine female victims, and their friends and families, at Kempton Park, which is near the international airport in Johannesburg. Over 5,500 people are murdered every quarter in South Africa, over 1,600 of whom are women. Gender-based violence is a disease everywhere, and it must be dealt with.

The conference, with over 900 delegates representing 56 nations and one third of the world's population, welcomed representatives from Morocco, Brunei and Ukraine as associate members. Members from across the Commonwealth asked me why Ireland decides to boycott that valued North/South and east-west organisation, which is a developed and developing world body that contains some of the key members of BRICS. One person who put that point to me was a senior member of the African National Congress. It is well beyond time that Ireland parked its anti-Britishness and looked to join the Commonwealth as at least an associate member. We should all be asking why it does not do so.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have received notice from the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I will take your point of order after this business is concluded.

Resolved:

That in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 21 September 2026 be extended to no later than 10.30 pm. — [Mr McGrath.]

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned about the comments from Ms Ferguson of Sinn Féin. She seemed to indicate that people should not be held to account for breaking the law in relation to un-notified processions, based on whether she thinks that that procession is meritorious. That seemed to promote breaking the law and be against the culture of lawfulness.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will take a look at that. Of course, MLAs should not encourage people to break the law in any circumstances. I assume that that is not the first time that that has happened, but, nonetheless, we will take a look at it.

Ministerial Statement

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I wish to make the following statement on the 45th summit of the British-Irish Council (BIC), which took place on 9 and 10 July 2026. The Minister for the Economy and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive. The summit was hosted by the Government of Guernsey. A full list of the principal delegates is attached to the statement, which has been provided to Members.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

The theme of the summit was nurturing beginnings, strengthening early years and family support for happy, healthy childhoods and lifelong well-being. The plenary discussion focused on the shared priority areas across member Administrations to give every child a happy, healthy and secure start in life. The Council considered efforts to support integrated, high quality early years services alongside increased access to strong family and workforce support. Members also discussed children and young people's digital access, recognising that needs, risks and opportunities will evolve as they grow older. The discussion acknowledged the benefits of digital technology and the importance of ensuring that children can learn and play in new and appropriate ways whilst remaining safe, supported and protected from harm. Minister Archibald and I took the opportunity to highlight the Executive's draft early learning and childcare strategy and its aims of supporting children's development, easing financial pressures on working families, and ensuring that the Northern Ireland childcare sector is stable and sustainable. We highlighted the importance of affordable, high-quality childcare in enabling more people, particularly women, to return to or remain in work. We underlined the need to invest in the early years workforce, helping to strengthen productivity and ensure that early years provision supports families, enables employers and invests in the workforce of the future.

We also reflected on the wider ongoing work across our government to assist families, including through childcare affordability, community-based support services and initiatives to help people to engage in their children's development. We stressed the Executive's commitment to help families and communities thrive, reduce inequality and ensure that every child has the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Council members briefed colleagues on significant developments in their Administrations and reflected on a range of domestic and international topics of mutual interest. We raised the important issue of community cohesion, noting that this summer had marked the third consecutive year in which Northern Ireland experienced disorder. We highlighted the key steps that are being taken by the Executive and their partners to maintain preparedness, strengthen cohesion across communities and improve public communications. We stressed the Executive's commitment to tackling racism and supporting victims, including through the draft framework for race relations and the progression of legislation to strengthen penalties for hate crime.

All Administrations welcomed the ongoing preparations for a cross-cutting symposium at the BIC, entitled 'These Islands: Cultivating Communities and Tackling Inequalities', which will take place in Edinburgh on 29 September. The Council noted the fact that the next BIC summit will be hosted by the UK Government. A date for that summit is yet to be confirmed.

Mr —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker — unless Edwin has changed — that concludes the statement.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Parents have heard repeated commitments with regard to childcare but continue to fight high costs and limited availability. Will the Minister tell the House what specific and measurable improvements families will see in affordability of and access to childcare over the next 12 months?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Those issues were raised at the meeting. We heard from member Administrations about the approaches that are being taken in each jurisdiction. The Member will understand that I was at the summit in place of the Minister of Education, who will, I have no doubt, wish to give a fuller answer to that question. I can say, however, that we are working across government to ensure that the provision is there. Under the leadership of Paul Givan, we have gone further than ever before on childcare provision, but it needs to go further, and that needs to be done in a joined-up way with other Departments. We all have a role to play in making sure that that support is in place, because it helps us in the work that Departments, including my Department, are doing.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, you highlighted the importance of family support to reducing inequality. Given your Department's responsibility for the anti-poverty strategy, will you tell us how the learning from the summit may factor into measures that will be brought forward in the anti-poverty strategy to support families?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will be aware of the work that we have been doing and the updated work that has been done over the past months with local government and interested parties that are involved in that. We touched on some of those issues at the BIC meeting, and information has been requested from some of the other member Administrations about the work that they are doing in that area and how it could factor into that. Let me be clear: I believe that the issues that we are talking about are essential to what we want to deliver and how we tackle poverty in Northern Ireland. I certainly do not believe that we have a monopoly on the wisdom on the subject, which is why I think that it is important that we continue to engage with other Administrations to look at some of the best experience, practice and learning from elsewhere. I will continue to do that.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

The Minister has described childcare as being a cross-government priority. What, specifically, will the Minister do through his Department to contribute to the delivery of the early learning and childcare strategy, particularly for families experiencing disadvantage, rather than having the responsibility rest solely with the Department of Education?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is absolutely right: it does not lie solely with one Department. If we want to improve outcomes for people and improve people's experience of early years, there are a number of ways in which other Departments can help. I have said time and again — I genuinely believe this — that making sure that a young person has a warm, safe and secure home is one of the best things that my Department can do for people. That is where it ties in for us: making sure that we give that certainty and stability in life, where we can.

Of course, there are responsibilities for other Departments, and that is why the Department of Education continues to work closely with the Department for the Economy so that we can support training, apprenticeships and other opportunities that arise for early learning and childcare. Work is also being taken forward on plans to establish a dedicated business advisory service for childcare providers, recognising the practical challenge that many providers face. I am aware that the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is also involved to make sure that the planned actions reflect the needs of rural communities. Of course, there is a role for the Department of Health, and the Health Minister recently announced £59·2 million of investment in Together for Families. That is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve the life chances of children and families across Northern Ireland. Whether it is Education, Health, Communities or Justice, all need to be involved in making sure that we are dealing with this issue, and that is why cross-departmental collaboration is taking place.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

Minister, was there anything specifically that you took away from the other Administrations on community cohesion that either DFC or the wider Executive could apply here to improve community cohesion?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That part of the discussion came up in updates from individual member Administrations, and we, sadly, had an issue to report that did not come up in the same way with other jurisdictions. However, we are going ahead and doing work on that. That is being led by TEO, of course including the involvement of other Departments. The meeting was in early July, and I do not recollect anybody having anything additional to contribute to that. That does not mean that we do not learn from the experiences and value of what takes place in other jurisdictions.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

[Translation: I thank the Minister for his statement.]

Given that so much of the theme of the meeting was around supporting communities, can the Minister explain his plans and how he will support the community and voluntary sector, which has seen massive and really devastating cuts to its funding since Brexit and the loss of EU funding through that?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It certainly is an important issue. It was not directly referenced — this was specifically about childcare and early years — but the Member is absolutely right to highlight that as an issue. It is right to say that many of those organisations provide support in this area, if not directly in the area of early years then in some of the other supports that can be around that, especially with how we can help people get into work. We continue to hear the impacts of the decisions that have been made, and, although it is the Finance Minister who leads on that, we have all been listening to those concerns. There is now a gap that needs to be filled, and the Member can be assured that the Executive will work together to do our best to make sure that we put what provision we can back in place, identifying the need that is there. She will understand how difficult that is because of the funding that has been removed in that way.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement, even if it is on behalf of another Minister. You highlighted the importance of affordable, high-quality childcare in enabling women to return to work or remain in work. As your Department is responsible for the gender equality strategy in that suite of social strategies, what action are you personally and your Department taking to address childcare as a barrier to women's participation in the labour market?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That is absolutely being taken forward as part of the work that we are doing on the anti-poverty strategy. You cannot separate the two. I hope that the Member will be pleased with the work that we have done on that when it is announced.

On the specific gender equality strategy, she will be aware of some of the issues that are being taken forward by TEO, specifically on violence against women and girls. As recently as last week, I have been engaging on that issue with officials to ensure that we can find a way forward and see what is possible in the rest of the mandate. Many social strategies were promised at one time. As many as 19 were proposed in the 'New Decade, New Approach' document, and we are taking those forward sequentially. I hope to say more on that. That does not mean that work has not been done in the meantime on those areas, including the anti-poverty strategy; work is being taken forward.

As I have just said, I am clear that a large part of anti-poverty is about enabling people to get into work. Childcare is a massive barrier to that. That will be part of the document, when it is produced, and I hope that she can support it.

Paul Boggs (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement, which references a "happy, healthy" start for children. Tackling child poverty and holiday hunger can help to give children and young people the best start in life, and we know that that can be done through the extension of free school meals during holiday periods. Minister, will you confirm your and your party's support for my colleague Danny Baker's Bill to end holiday hunger and extend free school meals as a measure to give children that happy and healthy start?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, I want to make sure that everybody has that best start in life. Our job is to make sure that we find the best ways to do that and use the resources that we have in the best way possible. The Member is new to the House — I welcome him to his place and to the Communities Committee — but he will learn very quickly that every decision that we make in this place and every pound that we spend mean that money cannot be spent elsewhere. Therefore, the questions for us are whether it is the best use of the money that we have and, if we put the money into a specific area, where it will be taken from. The costs in the Member's Bill are around £30 million. My question is this: where is that money to be taken from? If a Member's Bill is putting that responsibility on the Executive, where does the money come from? What will we defund in order to put that extra provision in place? We may well decide, "This is the right thing to do. This is the way that we can tackle poverty. This is one of the best things that we can do with the money", but I do not think that it is appropriate that it is done by way of a Member's Bill. As Members will see in other legislatures, there can often be limits on how much can be spent through the Member's Bill process. This puts a significant additional burden on the Executive. My simple questions to Members are these: "Where is that money coming from? What will it be taken from?". Those are the main questions that we have to ask, and I do not yet have the answers to them.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Justice that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions, as this is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Minister.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a statement to the Assembly on the case of Gary Anderson, the circumstances surrounding his compassionate temporary release, his subsequent absconding and information that has come to light following further examination of the matter.

At the outset, I reiterate that Karol Kelly's family remain at the very forefront of my thoughts. They have already endured unimaginable pain and loss, and recent events have, understandably, renewed their distress and caused significant concern. The family should never have had to relive that trauma in this way. I know that many members of the public will share those concerns. Subject to the family's wishes, I hope to meet them in the coming days to listen to their concerns and provide assurance that a thorough examination of the case is proceeding. I have asked the permanent secretary to commission an independent review. I will say more about that matter later.

I wish to be clear that Gary Anderson remains unlawfully at large. I urge him to hand himself in immediately. I also ask anyone who has information about his whereabouts to contact the PSNI without delay.

When I responded to a question for urgent oral answer last Tuesday, I indicated that the court had not afforded the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) an opportunity to reconsider or retake its original decision to refuse compassionate temporary release. That was my understanding at the time; it was also the understanding of the Prison Service. It was only when the judgement was published in full on Friday that a different version of events emerged. I immediately directed officials to establish the facts surrounding the case and the briefing provided to me. I also advised the Speaker that I would return to the House at the earliest opportunity to provide Members with an update based on the fullest information available.

Following further examination of the case, it has become clear that the possibility of reconsidering the original decision was discussed during the judicial review proceedings. However, the Department's inquiries indicate that the decision makers in Maghaberry prison were not informed by the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, that the court was considering such a course of action. The officials responsible for the original decision were, therefore, not given an opportunity to review, reconsider or reaffirm that decision nor were they made aware at the relevant time that the court was exploring whether the matter should be referred back for further consideration.

It is important to place on record that the original decision reached by the Northern Ireland Prison Service was to refuse compassionate temporary release. That decision was taken following consideration of issues including risk and public protection.

The urgent review that I commissioned in light of that information has identified shortcomings in the handling, communication and escalation of information during the judicial review proceedings, including by the Departmental Solicitor's Office. While those issues arose in the context of rapidly developing litigation and significant operational pressures across the Prison Service, they nevertheless warrant careful scrutiny. The urgent review also identified issues requiring further examination in relation to information relied upon by the Prison Service during the original decision-making process. As I made clear last week, those matters were already subject to review. However, the new information regarding the handling of the litigation means that both issues must now be examined together to establish the full facts and identify any lessons learned.

Accuracy and transparency are fundamental principles of ministerial accountability. It is important, therefore, that I place the updated information before the Assembly at the earliest opportunity. Given the seriousness of those developments, however, and the public concern that the case has generated, I have asked the permanent secretary of the Department of Justice to commission a fully independent review of all aspects of the handling of the case. That review will examine the handling of the case from the original compassionate temporary release application through to the judicial review proceedings and the events following Mr Anderson's release. It will consider the actions, decision-making, communications and governance arrangements across the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Department of Justice and the Departmental Solicitor's Office, as well as the advice provided to me. That review will establish the facts, identify any lessons learned and make recommendations for improvement. I have asked the permanent secretary to agree the terms of reference urgently and to appoint a reviewer who is fully independent of the Department.

I have been clear throughout that, where lessons can be learned, they must be learned; where improvements are required, they must be made; and where accountability is necessary, it must follow. I will keep the Assembly informed of the outcome of the review and of any actions arising from it.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

What a mess, and the more that we have heard, the messier it has got. Minister, while the family of Karol Kelly welcome the steps that you have outlined today and your willingness to meet them, it is hard to convey the impact that this situation is having on them. It must also be said, Minister, that the family's confusion has been compounded by some of the misinformation in the answers that you gave in the Chamber last week. It has been a week since Anderson bolted.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Is there a question, Mark?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The family wants to know what changes the Minister will implement to spare other victims and families such stress and suffering.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Member will be aware that I am willing to meet the family, and we are making arrangements to do that. His office requested that I did so, but I would have wanted to do so anyway to apologise in person for what happened in this case and for any role that the Department may have played in it. I also want to take the opportunity to hear from the family about how this matter has impacted on them because it is important that I do so, and do so face to face. I will seek to do that as quickly as possible.

With respect to the changes that will be implemented, it is impossible for me to prejudge the outcome of the independent review that I have commissioned. At this stage, it is impossible for me to say with certainty what recommendations it may bring forward. Therefore, it is impossible for me to answer that question at this juncture without potentially going off track and not doing the things that need to be done.

To be absolutely clear, when I answered the question for urgent oral answer last Tuesday, I advised the House that it would be highly unusual for a court to reach a final determination in a case of that nature without first affording the Prison Service an opportunity to review its decision. We were therefore surprised, to put it mildly, that the court had done so, but we were not aware that there had been any discussion of an offer to review the information until the full judgement was published on Friday afternoon. There was no intention on my part either to confuse the family or cause them distress or to confuse Members or cause them distress.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Some Members came into the Chamber after the statement had started. I will call them in the order in which they came in, and I will try to keep to the d'Hondt system. Members who arrived late should not expect to be called next.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

My thoughts are with the Kelly family, while my concerns are about public safety. When misleading the House, even inadvertently, last week, the Minister stated that the Prison Service had:

"conducted all the necessary checks and assessments". — [Official Report (Hansard), 15 September 2026, p40, col 1].

The Minister also stated:

"If, in other circumstances, a judge finds that they wish the Prison Service to reconsider a decision, the judge will often refer that back to the Northern Ireland Prison Service to look at it a second time. In this case, the judgement, which is available should Members wish to see it, goes further and sets out and stipulates conditions around the release. That is the unusual part of this, because it has happened only twice in the memory of those who currently work in the Prison Service." — [Official Report (Hansard), 15 September 2026, p41, col 1].

Will the Minister apologise to the House for misleading it? I ask that she address my concern that she leads a Department that sees fit to provide her with false information and then withholds the facts from her until the courts intervene with the full court statement.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, I take exception to the suggestion that I misled the House, inadvertently or otherwise. I was fully transparent in providing the information and did so with full candour. The issue of what my officials provided to me was also addressed with full candour. In the legal read-out that we got of the case, there was no mention of the opportunity to review the case being offered. Although the judge understood the offer to have been made in the court, that was not conveyed to my officials. There was therefore no one in the Department who could have advised me of that fact last Tuesday so that I could make it known. We were aware, of course, that what happened was highly unusual, which is why I brought it to the attention of the House.

The reference that I made to the judgement was correct. The judgement itself had been published at that point, and, again, that was without reference to NIPS being asked to reconsider. It was the transcript of the full case that was of interest, and that became available to us only on Friday. Not only did we have to read the transcript, at which point we realised that there was a discussion in the court about whether the matter could be retaken by NIPS, but my officials had to go to the court yesterday to listen to the recordings in order to work out exactly what had happened when the offer was first discussed. That is highly unusual.

As I said, I have been absolutely transparent. At the point at which I realised that the information that I had, in good faith, presented last week was not as full or as candid as I would wish, I contacted the Speaker's Office and requested to come to the Chamber at the earliest opportunity to correct it. I cannot see what more a Minister could do.

I am confident that my officials keep me informed, but they can do so only to the extent that the information is available to them. I am therefore commissioning a full review of all the processes so that we can identify whether any information that was available to my officials was not passed on to me — at this point, I have no reason to believe that that was the case — or whether there was instead simply a failure of communication between the Departmental Solicitor's Office and my Department.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, you have been clear in your view that no one in the Department is responsible for what has happened. Such cases are delicate, and we have to ensure that the rights of everyone involved are protected. Our thoughts are with the Kelly family, given the re-traumatising effect of this incident. There is no way that such decisions can be made with complete guarantees. However, for the judiciary to make a decision, it is crucial that the information provided be accurate and up to date, and it appears that the Prison Service has failed in that regard. Who, in your view, is responsible for that failing? Where does accountability lie?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are a couple of things. I am not saying that there was no one in the Department with any responsibility for the decision-making process. To be clear, that is not what I am saying. I am saying, however, that I do not believe, as I stand here today, that officials deliberately sought to mislead me before I came to the House last week. The allegation made was that my officials routinely lie to me: they do not.

On the issue of the failures, there are three aspects. The first is about the original information that was provided to the courts. The judge deemed that information to be flawed and therefore felt that it was not a basis on which he could stand over the decision of the Northern Ireland Prison Service that Mr Anderson should not be released. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that, if such a circumstance arises, we are normally offered the opportunity to review it and to provide further data or clarification as required. That was not communicated to the Department and the decision makers in the Prison Service. No one in the Prison Service was aware that that offer had been made in the court, so that was not a failing of the Prison Service. It was not conveyed either at the time or in the legal read-out of the case by those from DSO who represented us. That needs to be looked at carefully. They have accepted that there was a procedural failing in that regard.

The third element is about the substantive decision that was made to release Mr Anderson and to do so in the recognisance of his uncle — a family member. Again, there may be those who question the wisdom of that; I am not in a position to do so. It was for the judge to make the decision, and the judge made that decision. There is, however, a wider issue around civilian escorts in such situations that we need to bottom out.

Those are the three key things that appear to me from what I know now. However, I am aware that, even over the past 48 hours, this story has continued to evolve. I am not going to sit back and blame individuals because — I would love anyone in the Chamber who thinks that they have never made a mistake to stand up and say so — I do not want to see people hung, drawn and quartered in public for what was a very difficult and finely balanced decision. I want the review to bottom out exactly what happened and exactly what structures are in place to stop such failings and, if those structures are not adequate, to give me direct advice and guidance on what we need to do to improve things, because, whilst we can provide very little comfort to the Kelly family, I think that they would at least be comforted to know that no other family will have to face the same challenge.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

My thoughts are also with the Kelly family, given how distressing this incident must be for them.

Minister, from your statement, it is very clear that there are questions for the Departmental Solicitor's Office about how communication with the Northern Ireland Prison Service was handled in this case. Will you confirm whether DSO sits under your Department?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

No, the Departmental Solicitor's Office provides advice and guidance to all Ministers on legal matters and sits in the Department of Finance. It provides us with legal guidance and advice as we proceed through such cases.

It is very important to remember that there are individuals who work through what are highly challenging and highly sensitive decisions, often in short time frames and with considerable pressure applied to them. We need to allow the review to take its course and identify where the failings are. If those failings are in my Department, I will take responsibility for them and deal with the individual circumstances. However, it would be unwise for us to play pass the parcel with blame. I said last week that, when the decision was made by the judge, he was entirely within his rights to make that decision and that he perhaps applied a different lens to the decision than colleagues in the Prison Service would have done. I stand by that comment today. It is important that all of us in the justice system — and, indeed, all of us in the House — recognise how sensitive, challenging and finely balanced such decisions are.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to clarify the situation. I reiterate the message that our thoughts are with the Kelly family. We can only imagine what they are going through.

Minister, the more details that emerge about the release of Gary Anderson, the more troubling the decision-making process seems to have been, especially considering the risk to the public. The judgement is clear that counsel acted on her client's instructions, but why did the duty governor not receive communication that the judge had offered the Prison Service the chance to reconsider the decision not to release Gary Anderson?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I cannot answer that question because I only have DSO's response, which said that the failure to communicate was a procedural failing on its part. I grant everyone that it is an unusual set of circumstances; it is also an unusual set of circumstances in a highly controversial and sensitive case, and I understand that. However, it is one of the reasons why I believe that a fully independent review of all the various stages of the case is absolutely necessary to establish how we move forward in a way that ensures such an instance will not be repeated, because most people want that reassurance. Last week, I said that we would look again and review the basis on which we advise the courts on those issues, and if our robustness and clarity are found wanting, we will deal with it. However, given the communication issue between those in the courtroom and those waiting to hear about the litigation, it needs to go further than that and look at the wider issues, which is why an independent review is proportionate and appropriate.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I join my colleague in suggesting that you misled the House last week, Minister. Many of us believed that your statement was clear and concise and, indeed, lauded the fact that you had a copy of the judgement, which was a deflection on your part. Last week, when I asked you about reviewing the circumstances, you said that you believed that it was not "necessary or proportionate" to do that. Do you still hold that same view today? In your response today, you said that you changed your view after you saw the full judgement at the weekend. However, the court service —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question, Trevor.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

— was out very quickly last Tuesday afternoon. Who will you blame tomorrow?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, I object to people making claims and impugning my integrity. I accept —

[Interruption.]

I accept that what I said in the Chamber was based on the information that was available to me at that time, and there is now additional information.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will you apologise?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I have already apologised, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I have already apologised, both to the family and to those in the Chamber, over the airwaves, and I am happy to apologise again. There was no intention on my part to mislead the Chamber. I was fully candid about the information that I had at the time. Mr Clark has asked a specific question: why were we not aware of the difference on Tuesday, when the judgement was published, and Friday, when the full transcript was published? It was because the judgement that was published on Tuesday included no reference to referring back to the Prison Service; it did not say that.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

You said that you had a judgement.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It did not say that.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

You said that you had a judgement; it was in front of you.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

With respect, each Member—

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me. Sorry, Order. The Minister has a right to be heard, and Members have a right to be heard. Minister, continue.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

When the judgement came out, it set out the conditions under which Mr Anderson would be released; it did not set out the detail as to whether the Prison Service had been afforded an opportunity to review its position. I made that clear when I came to the House last Tuesday. On Friday, the full transcript of proceedings was made available, and, at that point, it became obvious that the judge had, in the course of the proceedings, discussed the opportunity for the Prison Service to take the decision again. He read that it had been rejected by the Prison Service. In fact, it had not been referred to the Prison Service to be considered, and that is the critical point in the miscommunication, which I referred to earlier.

The Member is desperately trying to make it a party political issue, and that is unfortunate.

The reality is that, unlike others, if I misspeak in the House or am provided with information that is less than 100% accurate, I return immediately to correct the record, as you should. There are others, frankly, who make all sorts of wild allegations, including during the questions today, who never correct the record or apologise for anything.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Minister, a murderer is at large. This is not a Civil Service bureaucracy issue, which is how the statement reads. My heart breaks for the Kelly family. You came to the House last week, and I believe that you misled the House. You blamed the courts. There was misinformation in a lot of what was said. Will you take the opportunity today to apologise to the House, the courts, other bodies that you have blamed in the past and to the Kelly family?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First of all, I did not blame anyone; in fact, I —

[Interruption.]

To be absolutely clear — it would be helpful if I could answer the questions, as opposed to being bombarded with more of them — I did not blame anyone. I am on record throughout last week as saying that it is not about apportioning blame. To say that I came here today not recognising the seriousness of the issue is also false.

The statement does not read simply like bureaucracy; in fact, it starts with recognition of the pain that was caused to the Kelly family. That is an untruth being spoken in the Chamber: will that be apologised for? I suspect not. I have apologised in the House today, and I have said that I would never willingly mislead the Chamber or lack candour in my dealings with the Chamber. I caution those who continue to insinuate that I would, because there are plenty of times when the things that they say do not stand scrutiny, yet they do not return to the Chamber.

The truth of the matter is that we have a dangerous person at large. He is a danger to the public and to himself. The PSNI is now following various lines of inquiry, and it is doing its best to ensure that he is returned to custody, which is where he belongs and where, the Prison Service believed, he should have been all along.

In answer to Mr Clarke's question, I said last week that initiating a full review would be disproportionate, but, in answer to Mr Burrows's question, I undertook that I would be willing to review the information that was provided to the courts. In doing that job, some of the rest of this has become apparent, which is why I am now saying that, in light of the additional information, a review is proportionate and appropriate.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Like my colleagues, my thoughts are with the Kelly family in this horrific situation. Given that the Prison Service's original position was to refuse compassionate temporary release on public protection grounds and given that there have been acknowledged failures and, clearly, serious communication problems during the process, does the Minister accept that serious systemic weaknesses have been exposed? What immediate changes have been directed to her officials to implement before the independent review report is complete, given the real seriousness of a situation in which we have a dangerous murderer at large?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Changes will be made. For example, there will be more checking of the information that is sent to courts in such cases to ensure that there are no typographical errors or mistakes in the information provided. That is a basic thing. At the same time as that review was going on, a review of this person's brother also took place, and it was not overturned on appeal. Therefore, there is clearly a qualitative difference in the information that was provided to the courts in that case. That is the starting point for what we need to do.

I do not see the independent review as being lengthy and protracted. I want it returned to me at speed with recommendations on how to take it forward. I also want to ensure that I have all the facts before I make decisions. Unfortunately, too many people are willing to reach their conclusions before the review has started. I want to give the review the opportunity to reach those conclusions. Where change is necessary, we will make that change. Where accountability is required, that accountability will not be found wanting.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

It is a catastrophic failure of the justice system that has caused widespread hurt and concern, and that has been acknowledged across the House. Another damning revelation that concerns me about the case is that it appears that the Department of Justice is presiding over no-go areas for prison officers in this country, with some sort of back-room deal having been done with MLAs such as Mark Durkan and former IRA prisoner Raymond McCartney. Does such a scheme exist to allow a former or current MLA to chaperone a dangerous criminal such as, in this instance, a murderer?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First of all, we do not preside over no-go areas in Northern Ireland. We must, however, defend the article 2 rights of all those who work in the Department. Article 2 is the right to life. I will not send prison officers into danger, where they are unable to protect themselves and where they could, in fact, place the public in greater danger. The advice that we receive about the security situation is clear, and we follow that advice. I am sure that the Member is not suggesting that I send prison officers into areas where they might find themselves under attack or lose their lives. We do not do that routinely with our Prison Service, nor would it be appropriate to do so. What we do is done under the advice of the Police Service.

The issue of civilian chaperones needs to be looked at, and I have said that it will form part of the review. There are circumstances in which members of the community who are of standing will find somebody handed over to their recognisance in order for them, for example, to visit a dying relative or go to a family funeral. Often, that person will be somebody of standing — an elected representative, a pastor or a minister of faith — who is a trustworthy and upstanding person. That has been the case and is always an option available to the judge. However, it was not my Department or Prison Service that recommended that Gary Anderson be released on the recognisance of his uncle — a family member — nor would they have done so, because their conclusion was that it was not safe to release him in the first place.

I am willing to look at the issue of civilian chaperones because I understand the concerns that people have rightly raised. It needs to be looked at. However, we also have a duty, which some Members of the House are not interested in, to those who are in the prison system to treat them fairly and with respect. When they seek to exercise their legal rights, including their right to apply for and seek compassionate temporary release in certain circumstances, we have a duty to consider it. If it is appealed, the courts have a duty to review it and the right to make those judgements. Other Members may disagree with that, but, unfortunately, in my situation, I am bound by the law.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Mr Buckley partly raised the question that I was going to ask. I thank the Minister for coming before the House. Before I say anything else, I share my concerns for the Kelly family. It must be traumatising for them to relive this.

Will the Minister explain her policy governing who may accompany prisoners on compassionate temporary release, including prisoners from certain areas who have reportedly been permitted to be chaperoned by elected representatives, whereas prisoners from other areas must be accompanied by prison officers? Will she publish the criteria and the equality assessment and guarantee that security arrangements are determined by objective risk, not geography, political representation or perceived community background?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First of all, I say this: objective risk is, unfortunately, in Northern Ireland, attached to locality in many cases. That is a factor in any assessment. The fact that some places are safer to go to than others is a reality of our situation. Every day, I work to change that so that every community is safe. I do not make the decisions about who chaperones prisoners who are released, but, if Prison Service decides to release a dangerous prisoner, its officers will normally accompany that prisoner. Part of its reason for refusal may be circumstances in which its officers are unable to do so.

As part of the independent review, I want to provide the clarity that the Member seeks on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for non-police or non-Prison Service personnel to accompany somebody. Clearly, their ability to restrain or restrict the movement of the individual will be much less than that of a fully qualified prison officer or police officer. That normally happens in cases where people are not serious offenders, but the decision on chaperoning in this case was not taken by the Prison Service, so it was not a matter of departmental policy. The decision was taken by the judiciary, which is able to take a decision in its own right and without regard to any policy that I might have.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Minister, this country does not have a good track record on letting murderers out. It has let them out for years and years, but, obviously, this is a more recent case, so we cannot really be too proud of that. My question relates to handcuffing, and I mentioned this last week during the question for urgent oral answer. Bear it in mind that my colleague Trevor Clarke brought you to the Chamber last week; you did not do so yourself. With respect to chaperones, why are the prisoners not handcuffed? Have you stopped all visits or all people going out with chaperones? The chaperone was an uncle of that prisoner, so what responsibilities lie with that gentleman? What responsibility lies with you if that gentleman strikes again on your watch?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is fairly clear at this stage of the questions that some people want to make this a political football. References to people being released historically — murderers and so on — have nothing to do with compassionate temporary release. It is just another political jibe in the Chamber that, of course, we have come to expect, as is the suggestion that I am personally responsible for the actions of any prisoner, let alone one who is illegally at large. That is a really serious thing for the Member to suggest. I caution him. Does that mean that, if someone in our schools commits a crime, it is Paul Givan's fault? If somebody in the community commits a crime, is it Gordon Lyons's fault? That is a nonsense argument. Such decisions are not signed off at ministerial level.

I have already told Members of the House that I intend to look at the chaperoning issue specifically. Such things are not happening all the time or every couple of minutes. I am working with Prison Service on what we can do in the short term and looking to the review to give us more indication of what we can do in the longer term. However, politicisation — turning the issue into a political football and trying to score capital — is not the way to show that you care either about the Kelly family or, indeed, the safety of the public. Being respectful and responsible in your remarks would demonstrate that much better.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Like other Members, my thoughts are with the Kelly family today. Gary Anderson was, shamefully, granted release from prison because his legal team cited his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Minister, when will the rights of victims be placed above those of victim-makers? Is quitting the ECHR not an essential step in that?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, I think that victims' rights should always take precedence over the rights of perpetrators, and I have been clear about that throughout my tenure as Justice Minister, whether that is through ensuring that people have been able to read their victim impact statements to the courts, through the work that we are doing on the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter or through the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill that I have introduced to the House to be dealt with in this mandate. Victims' rights are always the most important thing.

I remind the Member that, even if we were to leave the ECHR, that would not leave us in a vacuum where human rights are up for debate and it is a free-for-all. The ECHR codifies basic human rights. I do not know what kind of society people want to live in, but I want to live in one that is governed by fairness, respect and human rights, and that includes for those in our prisons. A wiser person than me once said, "If you want to know the state of a society, look at the state of its prisons". I want to ensure that, when people look at Northern Ireland, our society and our prisons, they see people being treated with compassion and dignity while being robustly challenged on their behaviours and confined for the protection of the public.

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

Minister, thank you for being open with us today.

I wonder whether you can answer two questions. Do you know whether representatives from DSO were present in court for the entire hearing and whether any DOJ representatives were present for any of the hearing?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The answers to those two questions, in short, are this: yes, we had counsel and a solicitor in the court; and, no, there was no one from the Department of Justice or Prison Service in the court. Again, that would not be unusual. There was communication between DSO and Prison Service during the judicial review, but that did not include the offer to retake the decision.

Julie Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

My thoughts remain with the Kelly family, as they have done throughout this terrible ordeal. First, Minister, do you acknowledge the fear and anxiety that is being experienced in my constituency of Foyle at the moment? Secondly, do you agree that there should never be a no-go area when it comes to law and order in our country?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I acknowledge that it is a frightening time not just for people in Foyle but for people in Donegal and in the border counties more generally, who will be concerned that Gary Anderson may have absconded across the border. The police have been in touch with their Garda Síochána counterparts to alert them to the risk and to any actions that they may need to take to ensure that he is returned to custody as quickly as possible.

I agree that there should be no no-go areas when it comes to justice. I say this, however: I am not, on a point of principle, going to send pretty much defenceless prison officers into areas where they may be shot. I am not going to do that. I would rather that the prisoner stay in prison, if that is the only option. I say that clearly and openly today. That, for me, is the substantive choice that was made. It was not made by me, nor was it made by Prison Service.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

It is tone deaf of the Justice Minister to choose this day to start talking about the rights and dignity of prisoners. We have a dangerous prisoner on the run. The public are frightened, and the victim's family have been re-traumatised. The duty of the justice system is to protect the public, but, on the Minister's watch, the opposite has happened. Minister, you are following not leading, and it is not your integrity that I question but your competence. Why was it —?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Is there a question, Jon?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

There is a question. Why was it, when you got the judgement on Friday, as I did, that you waited until after we put out a press release to clarify the details for the public. That is not transparent. Why did you not update the public on what was happening until Saturday afternoon?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, the Member, as always, knows everything. I do not know why we need a Civil Service, a judiciary, a court system or anything else, because the Member can do it all single-handedly and is an expert on absolutely everything. He can question my competence from here to eternity, but the reality is that my competence is not being questioned by those who work most closely with me and see the job that I do.

Others judge their competence against how many TikToks they can issue over a weekend. We do not do that, because the job that I have to do as Justice Minister is a serious one. My job when communicating is not to whip up fear and get likes on social media but to reassure the public and to make sure that the House is informed at the appropriate juncture. I therefore wanted to be sure of my facts before we put anything else into the public domain. Every time that we put something into the public domain that then needs to be changed, altered, corrected or developed, that creates more stress for the victims in the case.

As I said, when I saw the judgement on Friday, it did not take Mr Burrows on social media to motivate me to do work. I immediately commissioned an urgent review from the director-general of the Prison Service in order to bottom out what had happened. I immediately put a press release on hold against query, because I did not want to release anything before coming to the Chamber, and I wrote to the Speaker. If the Speaker's Office so wishes, it can confirm that I did so. It was important to me that I come to the Chamber, be transparent and be held accountable by the House.

On what transpired over the weekend, it was not until Sunday morning, when my officials were finally able to listen to the entire proceedings, that we got the clarity that was needed. Mr Burrows does not need clarity to make wild allegations on social media, but I need clarity if I am going to make statements in the House. I seek clarity first, then I come and make my comments. That is how I will continue to do my job, because that is required of me under the ministerial code.

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

Minister, tone matters. A family is traumatised by what has happened, and a murderer is at large. Whatever the tone of Members opposite, you are the responsible and accountable Minister, so your tone matters too. Let me remind you of that, Minister.

I will ask a question specifically on the judgement. You answered a question for urgent oral answer last week, on 15 September. A court judgement published on 13 September though not, presumably, made public until days later is clear throughout that the judge is surprised, to put it mildly —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew, is there a question? Thank you.

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

— that the Prison Service refused, it says, to reconsider the grounds for its objection to compassionate temporary release. That was why the judge felt that they had to uphold the judicial review.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew, is there a question?

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

That was a major structural failing. Can you confirm whether anyone in your Department saw or read that judgement before you came to the House last Tuesday, 15 September?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The judgement that we had in front of us last week and on which we based the information that I put before the House was the judgement that, I said, Members could look up. It included no reference to the opportunity for us to review. That became apparent only when the full transcript of the judgement remarks was available, and the judge rightly questioned why we had declined the opportunity to do so. You can imagine the shock in Prison Service: it was never offered the opportunity to do so, so it did not know that that offer was made in the court; that was not conveyed to Prison Service. I have already said that that is a procedural failing. DSO has accepted that it is a procedural failing. We are now trying to get the whole picture so that we can give full transparency, ensure that there is accountability and ensure that it does not happen again.

With respect to tone, Members come to the House and do not consider tone. When I came to the House, my tone was entirely reasonable. However, when my integrity is constantly questioned; when I am accused of lying; when I am accused of being incompetent; when I am accused of putting and raising the rights of prisoners over the rights of victims on a day like today — I did not do that; I responded to a question that I was asked — then , yes, I will sound vexed. I sound vexed because this matters. This matters to me. It is not just another performance piece in the Chamber. I care about the impact that it has had on the family. I care about the concerns that Julie Middleton spoke about on behalf of her constituents. This has vexed me, so, if my tone perhaps sounds slightly more stringent than usual, it is because I find it unthinkable that anyone in the Chamber who has known me for as long as they have would think that I would not care about it.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, the issue goes far deeper than Gary Anderson. I can cite multiple similar failings, not just in this case, that are due to individual elements of our criminal justice system not engaging with one another. That is, in large part, because our Criminal Justice Board still does not have a shared vision or shared priorities, as outlined by Criminal Justice Inspection in November 2024 — two years ago. There is a leadership issue.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Doug, is there a question?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, when will that be sorted so that our criminal justice system can become more coherent, joined-up and effective?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

To be absolutely clear, no vision statement written on a piece of paper would have prevented what happened last weekend with Gary Anderson. It simply would not. There are not multiple failings of this kind. The Member always insists that that is the case. A very small number of prisoners go unlawfully at large. Over recent years, that number has been quite small. A lot of work is done when Prison Service makes the decisions around whether people should be released. It is not a repetitive thing. Lots of other people are released for different reasons and return to custody, but I will not get into that.

The issue of the criminal justice vision has taken somewhat longer than what we anticipated. That is not because we have different visions but because my Department does not have the resources to fully move it on when we are also trying to deliver legislation, improve communications with victims, deliver better for witnesses in the system, ensure the safety of the public and increase police numbers.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Two years.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, two years. I hear the Member chuntering behind me. I know that it has been two years, but, of all the priorities in the Department, writing a vision down on a piece of paper is, perhaps, not the main one, particularly not in the past few weeks. However, given the scale and significance of our ambition around criminal justice, we have been taking that work forward, albeit not as speedily as I would have wished. It did not produce something that, stakeholders felt, was appropriate when we consulted. That has led to further engagement with stakeholders, and we have had to revise that vision considerably.

While the vision is critical to setting direction and tone, implementation is more critical. Significant work is going on across the justice system outwith the vision work that will help to drive the focus on victims. The Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill is just one tangible example, and it is more tangible than a simple statement on paper.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That concludes questions on the statement.

Committee Business

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 15 January 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Harbours Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure, I welcome the opportunity to set out the Committee's reasons for seeking an extension of the Committee Stage of the Harbours Bill until 15 January.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)

As Members are aware, the Committee has commenced its scrutiny of the Bill, which seeks to modernise the legislative and governance framework for Northern Ireland's trust ports, strengthening their ability to operate efficiently and enhancing their contribution to the regional economy. The Committee has made good progress to date following the Bill's introduction. We launched a call for evidence that closed on 2 September and received 37 responses. I record my sincere thanks to all the organisations and individuals who took the time to engage with the Committee and submit evidence. The Committee also received an initial research briefing on the Bill and looks forward to taking further evidence in the weeks ahead. In particular, members wish to hear directly from the four trust ports that will be affected by the Bill, the Office for National Statistics, given its role in classification decisions, and other relevant stakeholders who can assist the Committee in its consideration of the legislation.

While there is a broad recognition of the opportunities that the Bill may provide, including increased investment capacity, greater operational flexibility and enhanced commercial powers, the Committee is also aware of concerns that have been raised by local residents, particularly those that relate to Warrenpoint. In light of those concerns, the Committee has commissioned legal advice on the scope of the powers currently available to the Minister and on the implications of the changes proposed by the Bill. It is important that the Committee has sufficient time to consider the advice carefully and assess any issues that arise from it as part of its scrutiny.

The Committee is also mindful of its wider programme of work. Over the coming months, members are likely to face a demanding legislative agenda, with scrutiny of the Harbours Bill taking place alongside work on other legislation and the Committee's other ongoing responsibilities. That will be set against the backdrop of increasing pressures as the mandate progresses and the practical impact of Assembly recess periods. The Committee therefore seeks a realistic time frame that will allow for thorough and effective scrutiny while ensuring that the Bill can continue to progress without unnecessary delay. The proposed extension to 15 January will provide the Committee with the time necessary to complete its work. However, I assure Members that it does not prevent the Committee from concluding its consideration of the Bill at an earlier date, should that prove possible.

Before I conclude, I thank the Minister and her departmental officials for their engagement with the Committee to date. I also thank everyone who has already contributed evidence and the stakeholders who will assist the Committee in the weeks and months ahead.

I therefore ask the House to support the motion and provide the Committee with the additional time required to ensure that the Bill's scrutiny is conducted in a rigorous, thorough and effective manner.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 15 January 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Harbours Bill.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 22 January 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

As Chairperson of the Committee for Justice, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion and set out the Committee's position in seeking this extension, which is until 22 January 2027. As I have done previously, I begin by placing on record the Committee's thanks to the Minister and her officials for their engagement to date on the Bill.

The Bill establishes a statutory commissioner for victims and witnesses of crime and introduces special measures in cases aggravated by hostility and measures to protect complainants in proceedings for serious sexual offences. The Bill was introduced on 22 June, and the Committee's engagement began in advance of that. We received a pre-legislative briefing in October 2025, during which officials outlined the provisions in the draft Bill. The Committee has also considered the victims and witnesses of crime strategy during this mandate and most recently received a briefing from officials in February 2026. The officials outlined the link between the strategy and the Bill, and it is good to see themes and objectives in that work borne out in the Bill.

Part 1, which contains 23 clauses, deals with putting the commissioner on a statutory footing. These are technical and detailed provisions about the commissioner's function and powers that set out how the commissioner will interact with other bodies to best deliver for victims and witnesses of crime. I have previously spoken about the importance of the work of the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, with whom the Committee has had good engagement throughout the mandate. Indeed, the commissioner designate will give evidence to the Committee tomorrow on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc.) Bill. I suspect that every Member in the Chamber has heard about the importance of making sure that the justice system is victim-focused. The role of the commissioner will be of huge importance in that regard. The Committee has heard from the commissioner designate and departmental officials about the difference that can be made by placing the office on a statutory footing and about the powers that will enable the commissioner to better advocate for victims. It is therefore important that we get that aspect of the legislation right so that it benefits victims and witnesses and they can see the tangible benefits associated with the commissioner role.

The call for evidence on the Bill is live, and responses are still coming in. Submissions received so far indicate a particular interest in Part 2, which may contain only four clauses, but those clauses have the potential to be hugely important in providing further protections for victims and witnesses. Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime legislation highlighted serious concerns that victims might be discouraged from giving evidence if special measures were not considered. As well as providing for special measures in crime aggravated by hostility, Part 2 includes provisions that prohibit anyone charged with offences under the new statutory aggravation model from personally cross-examining the victim. The Committee is scrutinising the sentencing Bill, which introduces the aggravator model, and it is fair to say that there has been a good deal of discussion on that aspect.

The Bill also reflects recommendations from the Gillen review, with clause 26 containing measures to protect complainants in cases of serious sexual assaults. The Bill will allow complainants in such cases to make oral or written representations, to be legally represented and to attend hearings concerning applications to disclose their sensitive personal material. We, as a Committee, will undoubtedly welcome those provisions and the extra support for those most vulnerable of victims. We also have to ensure that the right balance is struck between the need for privacy and not to re-traumatise victims and the right of defendants to a fair trial.

Overall, the measures in the Bill aim to give victims and witnesses greater confidence and protection when engaging with the criminal justice system. The Bill must deliver for victims and witnesses of crime; people who, through no fault of their own, have had what are often traumatic and horrific experiences. It is therefore vital that the Committee properly scrutinise the Bill's intention and outworkings. I have said previously in the Chamber that the Committee recognises the importance of giving legislation priority and that we need to be effective and efficient in the work that we carry out. Our scrutiny must be robust. In order to do that, the Committee needs time, which, as we all know, is at a premium as we approach the end of the mandate. I recognise the concerns about the amount of legislation that will be compressed into a very small time in the latter stages of the mandate. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Committee is undertaking scrutiny of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill, which is complex, detailed and impactful legislation. In order to make both pieces of legislation as good as they can be, we have to balance our work. The Committee will only just have completed hearing evidence on the Sentencing Bill and will be undertaking our detailed deliberations on that Bill as we go straight into oral evidence on the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. We expect to meet twice a week over the coming months in order to manage the legislation that we have before us.

The Committee has also agreed to return earlier than it normally would after the Christmas recess to make sure that we meet the timescale that I am proposing today. It is a tight timescale, and, with another Bill in front of us and the normal and important work of the Committee continuing unabated, it is ambitious. However, the Committee is focused on delivering.

We will, of course, try to complete the work as quickly as possible. If we are satisfied that our work is completed and if it is possible to do so, we will report early. However, we need to make sure that we have the time to properly scrutinise this important legislation, so the Committee believes that the extension is proportionate and necessary and that it affords us the best chance of doing so. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Justice, I ask Members to support the extension of the Committee Stage of the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill to 22 January 2027.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 22 January 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Ladies and gentlemen, as the next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 1.53 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 14 has been withdrawn.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

1. Ms Egan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on ending violence against women and girls. (AQO 3934/22-27)

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

13. Ms Hunter asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the roll-out of the coercive control campaign as part of the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls. (AQO 3946/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Cheann Comhairle

[Translation: Mr Speaker]

, with your permission, I will answer questions 1 and 13 together.

Ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) remains a key Executive and Programme for Government (PFG) priority. Our second delivery plan, which runs until 2028, builds on the success of our first delivery plan and is focused on continued investment in the EVAWG local change fund, on deeper partnership working and on campaigns to increase understanding of violence, abuse and harm. Since 2024, more than £9 million has been invested through the change fund in community-based action, supporting over 5,000 events and reaching more than 96,000 people.

The Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes initiative, which is just one of the campaigns that we are running, was developed in partnership with Ulster University and is specifically designed to raise awareness and understanding of coercive control. The initiative has two elements to it: a public awareness campaign, which encourages people to check in with themselves and reflect on how they feel within their relationships, thus helping them recognise the signs of coercive control and understand when support is needed; and a train the trainer initiative, which is designed to equip front-line workers with the tools to recognise and respond to coercive control. We are delighted to say that, following the pilot, there has been significant interest in that training initiative. Our officials continue to work with Ulster University to develop arrangements for its wider delivery.

We know that ending violence against women and girls is a long-term issue. We have said many times in the Chamber that there is no quick fix. Through sustained investment, strong partnerships and collective action, however, we will continue to play our part in ending violence against women and girls.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you for your response, First Minister. As we all know, the Executive have not agreed a Budget for this year. What assurances can you give your delivery partners for ending violence against women and girls, which are community groups and women's organisations that are tackling the issue head-on on the ground, about their funding in the absence of an agreed Executive Budget?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

First, I assure the Member that we are doing everything that we can to get an agreed Budget. Your party is one of the four parties that, collectively as an Executive, agree a Budget. It is important that we get the right Budget, that it is fit for purpose and that it creates a baseline for our funding so that we do not end up limping from crisis to crisis. That remains our endeavour, and I can tell you that work is under way to agree a Budget.

For the area of ending violence against women and girls, we have planned an allocation of over £4 million — almost £5 million — in our contingency planning envelope, based on our assumptions about the Executive Budget process. Work is therefore continuing, and we are still investing in the campaigns and areas of work that I outlined in my initial answer. It is important that that work do not stop, and I can assure the Member that we are making sure that it does not, because we want to build on the success that we have had thus far. We want to build on all the progress made and sustain everything that has proven to be really effective. There is no delay to our plans to continue with the work that we have started.

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

Thank you for your answer, First Minister. Coercive control can happen to anyone at any age, and many teenagers may not know that they are experiencing it, owing to a lack of efficient relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in our schools. What level of engagement have you and your Department had with the Education Authority (EA) and schools on educating teenagers about coercive control?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member and I agree about RSE and what is needed in our schools. We have to get it right. It is where pupils' minds are open to taking on board what can be the complex area of understanding what a healthy relationship looks like. All Departments are represented on the cross-departmental body, and that is part of the conversation. The part that we play in that is through programmes such as Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes. We hope that those programmes are getting through.

Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes is about raising awareness. It is an information campaign that was launched in partnership with Ulster University. The campaign is about promoting an understanding of the fact that coercive control is abuse, which, unfortunately, is not always recognised in today's world, particularly by young women. It is about helping them, where they see it, to recognise coercive control and to understand the need to get themselves away from such a situation. Our toolkit is about all of that. It is about asking everybody to reflect on their relationships. I hope that, for our part, to deal with coercive control in our society, the campaign builds on the significant work that has been done over the past number of years. We had a pilot that worked with front-line professionals, and that work is continuing. It is about awareness raising and training resources, and planning is under way for the next training phase, which is on work to get support. Hopefully, that shows that there is a real willingness to get to the root of the problem.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

What strategies or initiatives, other than the Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes campaign on tackling violence against women and girls and identifying coercion and control, can you bring forward to tackle the issue?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thanks. To build on what I have just said, a considerable amount of work is going on in this area. Last week, myself, the deputy First Minister, the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable of the PSNI came together to launch our Power to Change campaign. That is very much a collective effort, building on the first stage of the awareness-raising and other work that we have taken forward already. It is very much targeted at young men and boys. As we all know, young men and boys have a role to play in challenging harmful attitudes and behaviours, and becoming positive allies. It is important that we are not always simply talking to them and that they know that they can be part of the solution. The message of that campaign is that online abuse has real-life consequences. We all know that; Members know that from their experiences. Things are said online — on TikTok, on Snapchat, shared through WhatsApp or whatever; it does not matter the platform — and the campaign is designed to say to young boys, "When you see something that isn't on, say it's not on. Call it out. Show leadership in your friendship group". It is not about lecturing young people; it is about asking them to think. When you see the imagery of the campaign, you see a number of adverts targeting different scenarios, which, in fact, have been designed in cooperation with young people, because they know how to speak to their peers much better than we do. There is strength in that. It is about showing respect, calling things out when you see them and recognising that young men and boys can be our allies in this problem that we have across society.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

The First Minister frequently speaks of being a First Minister for all and has, rightly, championed efforts to end violence against women and girls. Given that commitment, will she explain how her attendance at an event commemorating Thomas McElwee, who was convicted in connection with a firebomb attack that led to the death of Yvonne Dunlop, a mother of three, is consistent with that message? Does she recognise the hurt that that has caused to the victim's family? Will she unequivocally state that such violence was wrong?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I regret the way in which you have brought that question forward. Tackling the problem that we have with violence against women in girls is a subject on which we should all be united. The collective effort that we have around the Chamber on the issue is important, so I encourage you not to point score. I also encourage you not to use victims. I have said consistently in the Chamber, because each of your party's representatives stand and ask about the past, that there were many tragedies and injustices in the past and we need to create space to allow people to remember their dead. Let us do so respectfully; let us create space for each other; let us ensure that we look towards the future with more confidence and allow young people to grow up in a world that many in the Chamber did not get the opportunity to grow up in. I encourage you to look to the future. I know that that is not your party's style — you look to the past. That is certainly not my style. I am about the future. My eyes are focused on the future. You can continue to look backwards. As your party conference told us, you want the days of old. They are not available to you.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Here we have it: the First Minister of "no alternative" attends the terror fest that is the national hunger strike commemoration, which glorifies 10 terrorists who chose to starve themselves. Ms O'Neill, you stand here and pontificate about ending violence against women and girls. Geoffrey, Yvonne Dunlop's son, says, "What about my mummy?". What do you say to Geoffrey? What do you say to the other sons and daughters of the women that the IRA, which you glorify to this day, made victims, when you stand here and champion ending violence against women and girls? It is hypocrisy of the highest order —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

First Minister.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— for you to go to the commemoration and then try to champion this strategy. You do a dishonour.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I say on every occasion that I am asked those questions, when parties like yours want to look back, there were many tragedies and injustices in our past. The duty of political leaders in 2026 is to try to heal the wounds of the past, try to look towards the future and try to build a better society. I do not play games with victims' feelings. You do.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

No, I do not think so.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

You do that; you bring that to the Chamber.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

You were the one who —.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

What is much better is that we recognise that we are not going to agree on the past. None of us in the Chamber will agree on the assessment of the past. We have different narratives and lived experiences, and do you know what? That is also OK. Our job is to heal the wounds of the past and look towards the future.

The question is about ending the violence against women and girls that is a problem across our society, and I will not be found wanting in playing my part in that.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

2. Ms Ferguson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the importance of securing a fair and adequate funding settlement in protecting public services. (AQO 3935/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Executive are firmly committed to achieving a multi-year budget that is balanced and sustainable. That will help to provide the certainty required. We continue our negotiations with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in our efforts to finalise a multi-year Budget for 2026–2030.

The current offer on the table still falls very much short of what is required. What we need is a fair and sustainable financial settlement that properly recognises local need, allows us to stabilise public finances and ensures that households and businesses are supported through the ongoing cost-of-living challenges. The Holtham review of our level of need concluded that we require a central relative funding of 128% compared with England. Analysis by the Fiscal Council also demonstrates that we are funded below need and significantly below the relative level of funding provided to Scotland and Wales. If we were funded above need in the same way as Wales, we would have in the region of an additional £1 billion to spend in each year of this spending review. If we were funded above need like Scotland, that could be around an additional £3 billion in each financial year.

Those are the realities in the absence of an agreed Budget. We are continuing to press hard to get an agreed Budget but it must be the right Budget, it must be baselined, and it must tackle what we need to invest in public services to keep the lights on, transform public services and deal with all the other public sector issues that we have.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. Workers, families and businesses pay their taxes and rightly expect quality public services in return. With pressures now exceeding £1 billion and funding below assessed need, does the First Minister agree that the time for short-term Budget fixes is over and that the British Government must now deliver a fair, sustainable and baselined funding settlement that gives the Executive the resources to protect services and plan ahead?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree with the Member. That is the point that we are making and the negotiation that we are engaged in. Those are the conversations that we are having with the British Government, because we want a fair and sustainable, baselined funding settlement. That is the position of all four Executive parties, because the current situation cannot stand. We cannot keep limping from one cliff edge to another, with Westminster throwing some money on the table, walking away and leaving us with the same problem soon after.

My focus is on ensuring that our Executive have the money necessary to invest in our public services, because we want to protect and stabilise our front-line services, deliver on public-sector pay and have people's backs in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. It will be a difficult and challenging winter ahead. We want to build more homes, invest in waste water and critical infrastructure, tackle health inequalities and reduce waiting lists. To put it simply, we need the right financial envelope to do that.

Some commentary has suggested that we should have simply agreed a Budget by now and moved on: that is not the case. We should not accept less for our people. We should fight the good fight for our people. We should fight for more money for our public services. Our endeavours are to land at a point where we secure a much fairer funding settlement for our public services that protects jobs and supports workers, families, communities and small local businesses in getting through these times. That is what we are engaged in and will continue to be engaged in.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There is an irony in what the First Minister has said, because she has been fixated on breaking up the Union instead of focusing on getting the settlement that we need for Northern Ireland. For once, the First Minister should focus on putting Northern Ireland first. Instead, she travelled last week to Cardiff, and what she put very high on her agenda was breaking up the Union. She wrongly claimed that she was there as First Minister: she was not. She was there as deputy leader of Sinn Féin and was actually locked out of meetings. For once, will the First Minister start acting for Northern Ireland instead of trying to break us away from the Union?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There is no irony, actually, but I welcome your interest in the fact that I was in Cardiff with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales. I very much welcome the interest from everybody on your Benches. Is that not great? Welcome to the conversation. Let us talk about what is better for all of us; let us talk about the future; let us design that future together; and let us work together to end all the damages and ills of partition. Your MP colleagues continually refer to the fact that Westminster fails people here. It will always fail us. Let us recognise that together and work to build something better together.

When I became First Minister, I said that I would be a First Minister for everybody: I meant that, and I have lived up to it at every turn. As I also said, I am a republican, and I will never surrender who I am — I never ask you to surrender who you are — so you should not be surprised. If you are surprised, you need to read into politics a wee bit more.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

First Minister, do you recognise that, in order to maximise our case for securing a fair share and adequate funding, we also need to maximise the efficiency of our spending and that doing so involves the reform and, dare I say it, given the previous interlude, reimagining of the institutions?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I just said, we have to look at how we do business here; we have to look at how we can improve people's lives; and we have to look at how politics can work better for people. I am absolutely up for reform in the areas where we can do that. That is why we published our reform proposals: we believe that this is the space for reform and that we can do business better. Politics is only good to people if it delivers for them, so let us find ways in which we can transform how this place operates to allow us to do that. You will find that in our proposals, and I know that we will find it in other parties' proposals as well.

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

First Minister, I have no issue with your going to Cardiff to engage with Scotland and Wales; I commend it in relation to constitutional conversations. However, no First Minister or Finance Minister in Scotland or Wales has ever refused to set a Budget halfway through a financial year — in the age of devolution, that simply has not happened. I therefore ask you to rule out a preposterous and grotesque situation in which the UK Government have to set a Budget here. We know that that Budget would be nowhere near what you are asking for and what public services here demand. Can you confirm that, come what may, you will fight for the best possible settlement — the Opposition will agree with you on that — but you will not allow London to set a Budget for this place because we will not fulfil our responsibilities?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Matthew, I can tell you that all four parties of the Executive are deploying every effort to get a Budget: that is our endeavour. Do you know why Scotland is not knocking on the door or why Wales has agreed a Budget? Because they have more money, because they got a fairer settlement. People here deserve exactly the same. If we had the same arrangement as Scotland, we would be having a conversation about an additional £3 billion for our public services. If we had the same arrangement as Wales, we would be divvying up an extra £1 billion for our public services. They do not need to be in the position that we are in, because they are being funded to a different capacity. Our job is to maximise what we can achieve from the British Government to invest in our public services. Why should people here get any less than people elsewhere? They pay their taxes; they are entitled to good public services.

We are in the middle of a negotiation with the British Government. We have made some improvements and advances, but that is still not enough for the four parties of the Executive, so we will continue to work on that. I hope that we can quickly get to the point at which we have an adequate Budget that allows us to do all the things that we all speak about in the Chamber day after day: investing in our public services; bringing down our waiting lists; ensuring that we invest in special educational needs; doing more on childcare; doing all the things that we want to do. We will be able to do that only if we have sufficient funding. The fight that we are having right now is the right fight, and I am determined to take it to the end of the line.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

3. Miss Brogan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the economic, cultural and societal benefits of the 2026 Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann and the contribution of the Executive in maximising those benefits. (AQO 3936/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann really was an incredible success. It brought together people from across these islands and around the world to celebrate our music, our culture and our diversity and created an incredible atmosphere that many will remember for years to come. I was delighted, alongside the deputy First Minister, to attend the opening ceremony. There is no doubt that, from the first day, there was a real buzz about the city. You felt it no matter where you went. Belfast was thriving, and the fleadh showcased our people and our communities at their best. It was welcoming, inclusive and outward-looking.

The figures speak for themselves. More than 1·6 million visitors came to Belfast during the fleadh, an increase of over 89% compared with 2025, with more than 600,000 additional journeys made on Translink services. While detailed assessments are still going on, we believe that the economic benefit has surpassed the original £50 million projection. What an achievement that is as an economic booster, as well as a moment of joy and pleasure for everybody. It was a huge boost for our tourism, hospitality and retail sectors. The Executive were determined to make the best of it and to do everything that we could to take that opportunity.

I was delighted to see the progress made by, for example, the Department for Infrastructure on late-night transport. That allowed people to travel to the fleadh, enjoy themselves, have the craic and then safely travel home. That really helped the Belfast night-time economy, and more progress is being made there.

The Department for the Economy provided £1 million to support Belfast City Council and Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. A further £300,000 was given to Tourism NI to maximise the impact of the fleadh.

I am really delighted that the fleadh will come back next year. Look what we have to build on for next year: it is phenomenal. It was an absolutely amazing summer for that one showcase, never mind everything else that happened alongside it.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Aire as an fhreagra sin.

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

Does she agree that planning for Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in 2027 should begin as soon as possible so that we maximise its potential economic, societal and cultural benefits?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Before I answered the first question, I should have welcomed the Member back from her maternity leave and congratulated her on her baby twins. I do not think that I have had the chance to do that in the Chamber thus far.

I agree with the Member. Planning for next year is already well under way. The fact that we secured hosting the fleadh for two years meant that there was a lot of preparation and planning. As I say, Belfast City Council has begun the work of evaluating the economic impact of the fleadh. We know, even anecdotally from businesses and traders in Belfast, that the events held over that week had a hugely positive impact. Today, as I speak, our Executive Ministers Caoimhe Archibald and Liz Kimmins are at City Hall meeting members of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and the Mayor of Belfast to discuss how we can ensure that the fleadh in 2027 is even bigger than what was achieved this year.

It is important that we learn the lessons about where things can be improved — there is always room for improvement; such is life — find ways to plug any gaps and bring forward any possible additions. It is another opportunity. I think that it was the best of us. The fleadh was absolutely the best of us on show, with the inclusivity that it demonstrated. The welcoming hand for everybody was real to see. There really was something for everybody across the whole of the festivities. I look forward to welcoming it back in 2027. I know that it is on a two-year cycle, but 2028 is the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, so it would be amazing to have the fleadh again to celebrate all that has been achieved across this society. Despite the challenges and the politics of this place, there is no disputing the fact that the last 30 years have been transformative, so why not have the fleadh to celebrate that moment?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

First Minister, I share in your comments and positivity about the fleadh. I was particularly delighted to welcome the Taoiseach from the Irish Republic to the Belfast Bands Forum event. It was unfortunate, First Minister, that, on that occasion, you were unable to attend but, hopefully, you can do so next year.

The fleadh represented the very "best of us" at a time when we were in the city centre representing both Irish and British traditions. At the same time, you and your party colleagues were at Féile an Phobail events at which people were shouting, "Up the 'Ra" and "Go on home, British soldiers". Did the fleadh represent — to quote your words — "the best of us", and did the féile, which you attended, represent the worst of us?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am glad that your request is that I be cloned so that I can be everywhere all the time. Thank you, Phillip. You cannot get to everything at the fleadh. It was a huge success. There was so much that I did not get to go to this year but will go to next year. The fleadh demonstrated the best of us — absolutely; all day long. What we put on display for the world to see — the international media were watching — was inclusion. To me, that is what a new Ireland looks like. That is exactly what it looks like.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

You are already in Northern Ireland, and the UK can already deliver that for us.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It looks like a place —.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

That is the UK delivering.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

You do not like the answer, but you have asked me a question —

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

No, you do not like the facts.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— so let me give you the answer.

That is what a new Ireland looks like: a society that is based on inclusion, that is fair across the board, that allows us to celebrate our identity and who we are and that does not allow one to diminish the other. You do not build your own identity by diminishing another, to quote some of your party colleagues. What I saw over the summer —.Do you know that the féile is one of the biggest community festivals across Europe and the biggest in Ireland? I commend it for going from strength to strength. Its programme is amazing. I cannot wait to get it every year so that I can see where I will go. Again, you cannot get to everything, but I try my best. Over the summer, we had the féile, the fleadh, Belfast Mela and so many other positive events. Why not try to focus on the positives for once in your life? Stop being such a naysayer and a negative person. Stop looking behind you. Start looking towards the future.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

The First Minister will be aware that people from the arts sector and artists recently came to Parliament Buildings as part of a campaign to save the arts. In their meeting with MLAs, they said that the fleadh's success had come off the back of their many years of hard work that had led up to the event. For example, they said that the fleadh was given £6 million of investment, and there was a great return on that, which was brilliant; however, TradFest, which happened the week before, had received £37,000 of investment and £20,000 the previous year. What will the First Minister do with her Executive colleagues to protect the arts sector in order to ensure that, when big festivals come to our city and country, the people who have built them up are properly remunerated and supported?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Like the Member, I engage with many people from across the arts, and they often make the comparison with the support for artists in the South. We do not have that here, which is unfortunate, because we have so many amazing artists. We have a talented base here. We need to find ways to support them, and the summer's events proved that even more. A number of businesses said that artists came into their premises and played for free; they did not get paid because they just wanted to be part of something special. Part of the learning and lessons from that has to be this: when we have that type of showcase, how do we support our artists to come forward and create those opportunities? Unfortunately, the arts are often treated like a poor relation across the Department for Communities. We need to do more, and we need to find ways to put in place a strategy to support artists within the resources that we have. We need to look at examples of how that is done elsewhere. Let us not try to reinvent the wheel if there are ways to do that. We have had our own commission and have spoken to artists from across various areas, and they are begging for support and help. I want us to be able to do something: let us make it something that we can work on together, because the arts should unite us all.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating and thanking all the volunteers who made the fleadh a success, particularly those from St John Ambulance, which kept well over 100 people out of hospital with its field hospital at Ulster University, its presence beside City Hall and its mobile units?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The efforts of volunteers across the board, including St John Ambulance, played a role, as did the statutory agencies, such as the PSNI. The way in which they all worked together showed that we can host an event of that scale and can do it well because of what we have here. The capacity of the volunteers was second to none, and I met many of them when I was walking around the streets. I concur with the Member and put it on record that we are so grateful for their support; it would not have happened without them. They told me that they enjoyed it. Again, it was the best of us.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The First Minister has said previously that we should push and do all that we can to ensure the return of the fleadh to Belfast in 2028 to mark the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. Will the First Minister agree that the argument for the return of the fleadh to Derry or somewhere else in the North would have more merit, so that the massive socio-economic benefits that should have been brought by the Good Friday Agreement would be spread fairly across the North?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am not going to take away from the success of the fleadh. It was excellent in Derry, and it was excellent in Belfast. Let us bid for it to come to the North again. The learning from hosting the fleadh this year will be applied to next year's event. Today, as we speak, the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for the Economy are meeting Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann and the Lord Mayor of Belfast to actively plan for next year. We should bid for the year after that, because we have a lot to celebrate with the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. Despite the challenges, there is a lot to celebrate because our society has been transformed, and the fleadh is a wonderful way to celebrate that.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

4. Ms Sugden asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline how the Executive are measuring progress in improving outcomes for older people through the Programme for Government 2024-27. (AQO 3937/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Reilly to answer the question.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Through the current Programme for Government (PFG), we are committed to improving outcomes for everyone in our society, and that includes older people. The progress is measured in two ways. First, we monitor the delivery of the Programme for Government commitments, including those that are particularly relevant to older people. The publication of the PFG annual reports has shown the tangible progress that we are making on a range of commitments, including reducing health waiting times, tackling fuel poverty and providing housing-related support to enable people to live independently in their communities. Secondly, the well-being framework, which was published alongside the PFG, provides a broader assessment of the outcomes across society over time.

Many of the framework's indicators can be analysed by age, thus helping us understand the experiences of older people, identify areas where inequalities exist and assess whether outcomes are improving over time. We are committed to supporting people at every stage of their life, and we continue to engage with key stakeholders, including the Commissioner for Older People, to understand the key challenges that remain.

We recognise the considerable work that the Member undertook to develop and introduce the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill and the importance of the issues that the Bill seeks to address. We also recognise that the Member is continually a champion for older people. I congratulate her on that work and look forward to the Bill's Second Stage.

For our part, we will continue not only to track the delivery of our Programme for Government commitments but to assess whether long-term well-being outcomes are improving for people across our society, including older people.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now move on to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that the First Minister said last week that the proposed additional pay rise for MLAs is "grotesque", and given that it is true to say that the public are appalled by proposed pay rises for this place when they are facing huge increases in the cost of living and particularly when the delivery record of the Executive that she leads is so poor, pointing out that, with all due respect, the First Minister is jointly the best-paid person in the building and the longest-serving Minister in the Executive by some margin, whether, notwithstanding the desire of Ministers in the Executive, and particularly those from her party, to shift blame for the collapse in public trust on to everyone but themselves, she personally takes any responsibility for collapsing public trust in Stormont? (AQT 2591/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

What a preamble. Our job in here is to try to make politics work. The public are very tuned into how difficult this arrangement is. They are very tuned into the complexity of the situation and know who wants to move forward and who wants to look backwards. They are very tuned into who is blatantly sectarian in their approach in their Departments and to the financial challenges that we have because of the block grant. They want us to work together to deliver for them, however. I can say, hand on heart, that, where we can get that cooperation, that is what we will work towards getting. Where there are blockages, we need to call them out and name them for what they are. We can, however, say confidently that, in this very short mandate, a number of things have been delivered on. Are they enough? No, never. Will we work to do more? Yes, we will. We have a short window left in the mandate, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that we deliver what we can and to build on that delivery in the next mandate.

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

I am not being negative. I am not deflecting from the obstruction by the DUP, which does exist, or the financial challenges, which do exist. Challenges exist for all Governments, but my job as leader of the Opposition is to hold you and the Executive collectively responsible.

In 2022, very clear promises were made, but they have not been met. Not a yard of the A5 scheme has been built. There is no sign of a ball being kicked at Casement Park. We are six months into the financial year with no Budget. Public-sector workers have no idea whether they will get a pay rise, but they see people here about to get yet another pay rise.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I think —.

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

People expect the Sinn Féin First Minister —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr O'Toole.

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

— to deliver for them.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr O'Toole.

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

First Minister, what do they —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr O'Toole.

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

— have to show for it?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr O'Toole, please. Less rambling and more getting to the point.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

You are being a bit disingenuous. Where is the A5 scheme? It is stuck in the courts. That is not about political will but —

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

It is.

[Inaudible.]

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— about the courts. I know, but be honest. When you say that there is a problem, name it and diagnose it as what it is. Yes, there are things that are stuck that we want to see advanced quicker but have not been. Yes, there are things that the DUP has turned its mind towards thwarting at every turn. You would be better working with me to ensure that we get those things over the line, as opposed to trying to point-score.

I take the point that politics has to deliver for people. We need to do everything that we can to work together where we can, but we also need to diagnose things as what they are, Matthew. Let us be honest as well.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

T2. Mr Martin asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that he was chatting to a number of housing associations over the weekend, whether the First Minister accepts that setting ambitious targets for social housing is fairly meaningless unless those targets are properly funded and whether she will commit to ensuring that the Executive provide the necessary investment to build the number of new houses that people desire across Northern Ireland. (AQT 2592/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As the Member knows, that is an issue that we have raised repeatedly. The deputy First Minister and I have raised it with every Prime Minister that we have had to deal with in recent years, and we have raised it with Secretaries of State. We continually raise it as part of our Budget discussions. If we are to build houses, we need to have access to the funds to do so. If we are to build houses, we need to be able to invest in our waste water infrastructure. Those two points have very much been heard in our ongoing Budget discussions with the Secretary of State.

John O'Dowd has also raised it at every turn. We need more money to build houses and invest in waste water infrastructure.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

The First Minister touched on waste water infrastructure. Is she aware that the crisis in waste water infrastructure is stopping 6,000 houses being built across Northern Ireland? Does she still believe in the three-pronged approach of her party's Infrastructure Minister as a solution to the waste water crisis, or does she agree with business analysts and experts in the field who have described her Minister's solution as woefully inadequate?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As the Minister — I elevated you there. As the Member will know, the Infrastructure Minister has invested in waste water infrastructure with the ability that she has within the funding that she has been given. An extra 5,300 homes have been unlocked as a direct result of what she has done. When the Minister brings her paper to the Executive on how we can unlock infrastructure over the next 10 years, I look forward to the Member's party getting right in behind that and giving her the money to do it. You do not get to apportion blame for that in the power-sharing arrangement. You actually have to join up the dots, follow through and put money where you want it to go. That means investing in waste water infrastructure. I am glad that we have your support.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

T3. Mr McMurray asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, noting the travel disruption at NI airports that is caused by repeated NATS software failures, and given Northern Ireland's dependence on air connectivity, what representations they will make to the UK Government on the impact of those repeated failures on Northern Ireland's passengers and airports. (AQT 2593/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will come back to the Member on any detailed conversations that we have had. Certainly, questions have been asked. There was big disruption that caused real havoc for people for a few days. The British Government have to get to the bottom of it. We cannot keep having that interruption. While, obviously, it is not a devolved issue, we pay a lot of attention to it, given our dependency on connectivity. If we have anything else to add for the Member, I will ensure that he gets that in writing.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Thank you, First Minister. I appreciate that.

More extreme weather events will also put pressure on air travel. Will the First Minister press the UK Government to revisit their participation in the European geostationary navigation overlay service (EGNOS)?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will take that on board. That is quite the title. I will take that away and come back to you on it.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Topical question 4 has been withdrawn.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

T5. Ms Ferguson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, noting that, over recent weeks, there have been irresponsible and reckless attempts by the Orange Order and political unionism to reopen the long-settled Drumcree issue, whether they agree that there can be no going back to the dark days of Orange marches being imposed on nationalist communities. (AQT 2595/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for the question, which is very topical given that the adjudication will be made this week. As I have done repeatedly throughout recent weeks, I send my full support and solidarity to the people of the Garvaghy Road. That is a very strong and proud community, as you have heard our colleague John O'Dowd restate in the Chamber. It is a community that is confident and very much focused on the future, and one that has made much progress over the past 30 years. I saw that for myself when I visited the community in recent weeks.

It is also a community that has suffered an awful lot of heartache, pain and trauma as a direct result of the dark and miserable period of unwanted marches being forced through its heart, and the mayhem and murder that accompanied that. Last week, everybody was reminded of the murder of Robert Hamill. That all happened around that time. When people think about Drumcree and the Garvaghy Road, they think about Robert Hamill, the Quinn children and all the deaths that occurred at that time. Today, you see residents of other areas coming forward. Again, John O'Dowd spoke about it earlier. We have a letter from community associations across the North that talk about all the work that has gone into trying to move things forward, uphold citizens' rights and find local accommodations, and the potential for all that to unravel just because the Orange Order wants to get its way at Drumcree. That is a desperate situation. The letter speaks for itself. The people of the Garvaghy Road do not want those wounds to be reopened. No right-minded person out there wants those wounds to be reopened. It begs the question as to why the Orange Order and political unionism want to reopen the issue. I do not think that anybody else wants that.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

In relation to begging the question "Why?", does the First Minister agree that this is a cynical stunt designed to drum up support ahead of next year's elections after a summer of DUP scandal?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I do. That was very evident and on display at the show at the weekend. It is clear that the DUP wants to look backwards. It is very much about blatant electioneering. It is about the DUP covering up for everything else that is going on — the summer of scandal, as you called it. It is all about deflection and distraction from what is happening.

What I heard over the weekend and what I hear in the commentary around Drumcree is about supremacy, triumphalism and railroading over the wishes of a community. That was clearly on show at the DUP's party conference at the weekend. It just stinks of entitlement, and people have made up their mind on it. The wider public do not want this going backwards. They want to see politics delivering for them in the here and now, and they want to see us looking towards the future. We see an attempt to reopen something that was settled 28 years ago — as I said, nobody wants it.

It begs the question "Why?". Why is the DUP being led by the nose by Jamie Bryson? Electoral reasons. People can see through it, but the Garvaghy community deserves better. I will tell you what: even more than that, the Garvaghy community deserves better, and the whole of society deserves better. They want us to build on the progress of the last 28 years. They want us to look towards the future. They want us to build a society that is fair and inclusive. They do not want us to keep our heads in the sand and keep looking backwards. That should be the obligation of every political leader in the Chamber, not what we see today — not looking backwards and trying to reclaim the First Minister's post just for unionism because it owns it; and not trying to look back to the Garvaghy Road just for electoral reasons. People can see through it.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

T6. Mr McGuigan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, with regard to people wanting to be forward-looking, to update MLAs on last week's historic initiative and conference in Cardiff. (AQT 2596/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you. I was really delighted to see that it got so much attention at home, because it was such a momentous opportunity and very much builds on the elections and the historic breakthroughs of First Ministers in Scotland and Wales who all have their own journeys and their own political identities. We are all different, and that is OK. The opportunity that we had was for the leaders of Sinn Féin, the SNP and Plaid Cymru to come together in common purpose, because, while we are all different and may have different priorities and have different journeys in terms of where we have come from, how we arrived in 1998 at devolution arrangements for them and at a peace agreement for us, it gave us the opportunity to underline that it will only be the people who get to decide the future. It is for us all to have our rights honoured when it comes to self-determination. We are living through times of enormous change, and I encourage everybody to get involved in that debate. Stake your claim, because this is our future. We own it together. Such opportunities are not to be missed.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

It is clear from the summit last week that political debate about the future is now mainstream. You said and I agree that partition has failed this island and that we must be ready for constitutional change when it comes. First Minister, do you agree that it is absolutely essential that people across every city, county and community are properly informed, heard and involved in shaping that future?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I absolutely do. We have the Good Friday Agreement. My generation's gift was the Good Friday Agreement, and I believe in working it to the nth degree. I believe in it, and I believe in being here every day despite the challenging arrangement that we have. I believe in trying to make politics work despite the challenges that we have. I believe in the fundamental right of the principle of consent. It will be the people here who get to decide the constitutional future, but that means that we should not wait. We need to have the conversations and do the preparation now. We need to do the hard yards and not rinse and repeat the mistakes of Brexit, when people were asked a question but did not have all the information. I do not want that for anybody here. I want us to build a better and more prosperous future in which our young people get to live in a place where they have every opportunity and hope.

That is the thing that everybody needs to get their head around. What could this be for all of us together? What could it be for a kid who lives on the Shankill Road and a kid who lives on the Falls Road? What is the better? There is definitely something better, because, when this state was designed, it was designed in such a way that we would live back to back and in such a way that we would fight one another.

I do not want that, and nor does anyone on our Benches. We want to build for our collective future. This should be about hope. It should be about ensuring that our children grow up in a future where they are nourished and given every opportunity to survive, where we grow the strongest economy, where children have access to first-class education and where we have one national health service. That is the future that I want to build, and I know that it is the future that you want to build.

Oral Answers to Questions — Health

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

1. Mr Mathison asked the Minister of Health for an update on the delivery of a facial palsy service in Northern Ireland. (AQO 3949/22-27)

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. A facial palsy regional planning group was established in September 2023. That group developed an action plan, which included the establishment of a local and regional pathway to assist with assessment and treatment. In addition, a new nidirect web page was developed in order to assist patients who experience facial palsy and its symptoms. That web page signposts patients to helpful information whilst waiting for assessment. Through the development of a local pathway, it was determined that specialist facial therapy input provides an essential part of conservative management during recovery. To that end, a small amount of funding was identified through waiting list initiatives funding to address the recurrent list of patients who were waiting to be seen by a facial therapist and to develop a future pathway to a regional facial therapy service, which is part of the multidisciplinary team model.

My Department has now allocated funding to enable specialist facial therapy input to be delivered in the Belfast and South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust areas. By expanding the current service provision, we are now able to deliver a range of benefits, including standardisation of care through the introduction of clear referral and treatment pathways, as well as improved patient outcomes through early intervention and access to specialist therapy. I hope that further recurrent investment can be secured in order to put in place an enhanced regional service for those who require highly specialised services. However, that is not possible at present, given wider service pressures and priorities.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. As this is the first opportunity to do so, I put on record my congratulations to the Minister on his appointment.

Minister, you will be aware — I hope that you are aware — that as far back as 2018, the then Health and Social Care Board gave clear assurances to patient advocate Janet Robb, who has worked tirelessly on this issue — I was in the room when those assurances were given — that an in-reach service would be put in place in Northern Ireland. There were clear assurances that, while the huge amount of work that is still required to deliver a fit-for-purpose facial palsy service was ongoing, a clinical partner in Great Britain would be brought in to deliver services for those patients in dire need. Can the Minister outline why no such service has ever been put in place, what he will do to rectify that, and whether he will undertake to meet me and Janet Robb to discuss the whole range of issues that are impacting on facial palsy patients in Northern Ireland?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I will do my best to answer those three questions, if I can remember what the three of them were. I pay tribute to Janet Robb, who is a phenomenal advocate who is passionate about those services. She has contributed marvellously, as can be seen and heard on the nidirect web video.

It is important to understand the context in which we are operating. On average, between three and five patients a year are assessed to be suitable for facial palsy surgery in Northern Ireland. Those referrals are managed by the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust as part of the network arrangement with a specialist provider in Great Britain. That arrangement was informal, but the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) has recently secured funding to enable a formal arrangement to be put in place. Discussions have now commenced with clinicians in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and its UK counterparts to determine the best provider for that formal commissioning arrangement. Most facial palsy assessment and treatment is provided locally through local hospital specialities. The SPPG sends most of those patients who require specialist surgery and/or Botox treatment to GB via an extra-contractual referral (ECR) arrangement.

My office has already been in contact with Ms Robb to arrange a meeting. Thank you for raising the matter today.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, I have constituents who come to me with this very perplexing problem. Many of them have to pay for their own injections to relieve their facial palsy symptoms. That is extremely taxing on those individuals. You spoke about funding that had been allocated by the South Eastern Trust for the treatment of facial palsy through the waiting list initiative. Many, however, question whether that is being directed specifically at facial palsy or has been subsumed into the wider specialities in plastic surgery —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Get to the point, please.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

— in the trust.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. It is a fair question to ask. When we look at the Budget allocations and the pressures that we are under, it is absolutely right that every penny needs to be accounted for. One could say that much more needs to be done. The work that the SPPG has done with the limited funding that it has been able to allocate from the elective waiting list is useful, but it is not the end picture. For those who await services and have been struggling, we need to do much more. I urge my Executive colleagues to get around the table and agree a Budget to ensure the future development of such services and to ensure that funding for the services that need to be provided is recurrent so that we have that full picture.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Minister, previous estimates suggest that between 576 and 750 people here develop facial palsy each year. As was suggested in the two previous questions, I suggest that sufferers have been left behind here. In the absence of a commissioned service, where are patients currently being referred to for specialist physiotherapy, psychological support, ophthalmology and reconstructive treatment; and how long are the waiting lists?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that detailed question. This is a developing service, and the SPPG has entered into wider arrangements with the Belfast Trust and South Eastern Trust to develop those services in a better way. Unfortunately, across the trusts, the people interface service is not done in the same way. It is a priority for me to ensure equitable access across the provision. I will get back to the Member on his question with a detailed, trust-wide picture, because equity is important in the provision of those services.

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

Minister, you are very welcome to the role. This is the first time that I have asked you a question in your new role, so the best of luck to you.

Specifically on paediatric palsy, I am aware of a case involving a family who have had real issues around pathways for paediatric facial palsy. I have written to you about the subject and the specific issues that arise. Are you willing to meet to discuss those issues? They are connected to adult palsy but slightly specific to paediatric palsy and distinct from the broader adult facial palsy issues. There are specific issues here. If you are willing to meet so that we can clarify some of those points, it would be helpful.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for welcoming me warmly into the role. Absolutely, you can reach out with those issues. I remember the question that you posed and the pressures that are faced in that paediatric setting. You are quite right: facial palsy has myriad conditions that underpin it right through the age brackets. I absolutely make a commitment to you: if you pick that up with my private office, we will sort something out.