Northern Ireland Assembly, 28 September 2026

483 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members, in line with normal Assembly convention, it is my duty to inform the House of the passing of Paul Butler. Mr Butler was a Member for Lagan Valley for one mandate between 2007 and 2011, serving as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. As on all such occasions, I will call a representative from each of the parties to speak for up to three minutes to allow them to express their condolences.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I pay tribute to an old friend and comrade Paul Butler — Pól de Buitléir — who died suddenly last week at the age of 70. I first met Paul many years ago — probably in the 1980s — in prison. In many ways, we followed a similar path: when released, we became involved in politics and in helping our communities.

Paul first became a councillor on Lisburn Borough Council in 1997. In fact, he became the leader of our group on Lisburn Borough Council, replacing Pádraig Ó Maolchraoibhe — many people will know him as Pat Rice — at a time when it was dangerous to attend the council. Sinn Féin representatives had to travel in armoured cars and wear body armour because of the threat against them. Paul was then elected as a Member of the Assembly in 2007 and served for one term until 2011.

For the past 15 years, he dedicated his time to working with victims through Relatives for Justice, and, over the past days, I have spoken to many people who have commended Paul for the support that he gave to them and the work that he has done for victims' families. Although small in stature, Paul was absolutely committed to everything in which he engaged. I have heard from people who worked with Relatives for Justice that he was totally committed and dedicated to helping families who suffered as a result of the conflict.

I pay tribute to Paul. He was a friend and comrade to many people and a popular representative. When he was a councillor and when he was a Member of the Assembly, the praise that he received from people in the community was absolutely amazing. I pass on my condolences to Paul's wife, Gladys, to other members of his family and to those of us in the republican community who knew him, counted him as a friend and loved him.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

On 26 January 1974, John Rodgers was on duty in Glengormley. He was 50 years old. A foreman mechanic, a husband and a father of four, he gave of his spare time to serve as a Reserve constable to keep his neighbours safe. He was walking past a bar with a colleague when a single shot was fired. It killed him. Paul Butler was convicted of that murder and spent almost 15 years in prison. Whatever came after that is what matters to the Rodgers family; for over 50 years, they have lived without him.

A man's death brings grief to those who loved him — I do not deny that — but John Rodgers' family were given no time to say goodbye. Today, our thoughts are very much with them.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I did not know Paul Butler, but I know that he was a friend and colleague to people with whom we work in the Assembly and that he served as a councillor and an MLA. I am minded of when Anna Lo passed away and of how much it meant to me when people stood up and shared their sympathies. On behalf of the Alliance Party, therefore, I say that our thoughts are with Paul's family and his grieving colleagues.

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

Chuir mé aithne ar Phól anseo sa Thionól. Dar ndóigh, is iomaí comhrá a bhí againn tríd an Tionól. In amanna, níor aontaigh muid le chéile, ach sin an pholaitíocht agat. Gach aon chomhrá a bhí againn le chéile, bhí sé measúil, cairdiúil, caithfidh mé a rá. Ag an phointe seo, bás tobann a fuair sé, agus is dócha go ndeachaigh sé sin go mór i bhfeidhm ar chuid mhór daoine. Déanaim comhbhrón leis na daoine sin. Déanaim comhbhrón go háirithe lena bhean chéile, Gladys, agus lena theaghlach, lena chairde agus le gach duine a raibh aithne acu air.

[Translation: I met Paul here in the Assembly. We, of course, had many conversations in the Assembly. We did not always agree with each other, but that is politics for you. I have to say that every conversation we had was both respectful and friendly. His death was sudden, and I know that it has affected many people. To those people, I express my condolences. Condolences especially to his wife, Gladys, and to his family, his friends and everyone who knew him.]

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

If ever there was an item in an Order Paper that exposed the depravity of this system of government, it is condolences to Paul Butler — it sums this place up. I rise to remember not Butler but his innocent victim, John Rodgers. Mr Rodgers was a 50-year-old police reservist. That is the man whom Butler shot in Glengormley on 26 January 1974. Paul Butler cowered in the alleyway from which was fired the shot that ended John Rodgers' life — a shot that left a wife a widow, that left four children without their dear father and that robbed John Rodgers of his natural death, which was permitted to Paul Butler when he met his maker, last week.

Shamefully, that murderous action was no bar to Mr Butler's seeking and obtaining an MLA seat for Sinn Féin in the Assembly. After he left the House, he went on to work for Relatives for Justice, an organisation that, shamefully to this day, maintains the fiction that there is no difference between an innocent victim such as John Rodgers and one who is blown up by their own bomb. Every family grieves the loss of a loved one. No one would deny that pain and loss, but that grief should not prevent the Assembly from hearing the truth about the shameful legacy of Paul Butler: the widow-maker, the creator of a fatherless family, and a man who devoted his life to the twisted and evil republican cause. That man should not be remembered or eulogised in the House. It should be the name of John Rodgers that we think about today.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I extend my condolences to the family, friends and party colleagues of Paul Butler, a republican who was held in high regard not only by his colleagues but by other organisations and across the political spectrum of republicanism and more broadly. I knew of Paul when he was an MLA for Lagan Valley. I read a lot of his contributions and articles in newspapers and watched and listened to his media performances. I met him a few years after he stopped being an MLA. I came across him quite a few times, usually in Andytown leisure centre, of which he was a frequent user. He was a fit, athletic man, which makes his death all the sadder. I therefore express my condolences, and those of my party, on the passing of Mr Paul Butler.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That brings to a conclusion condolences to be expressed on the passing of Paul Butler.

Matter of the Day

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Jonathan Buckley has been given leave to make a statement on the Parades Commission's Drumcree determination that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Before we begin, I will make a few remarks. It was a pretty difficult weekend, and we all need to recognise that. Passions are running high. I have accepted items of business that will deal with the issue, because it is my view that it is much better that such matters be dealt with in this democratic institution than on the streets. The Assembly exists so that our differences can be expressed through democratic processes. It is therefore important that Members have the opportunity to do that.

There are older heads on all sides of the Chamber who have learnt the lessons from and bear the scars of the past and do not want it to be repeated. I was four when the Troubles started. For all my childhood and formative years as a young adult, I was brought up in an atmosphere of people being killed daily or regularly. That is not something to which we want to return. It is therefore incumbent on Members to seek to arrive at a situation in which people can reconcile as opposed to ramping things up further. I have had the experience of the police coming to my door. I have also had the experience of coming home to find that there had been a murder attempt on my father. Many others, inside and outside the House, have had that experience and worse — considerably worse — so, when we are engaging in debate today and considering what we have to say, it is important for us to remember that. There is no issue with Members expressing opposing political views in the House, but we should be mindful of not seeking deliberately to inflame tensions, which are already high.

In order to recognise the importance of what has been set down before us and what Members have signed up to, I will refer to the ministerial code and the Pledge of Office.

The Pledge of Office is:

"(a) to discharge in good faith all the duties of office; (b) commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; (c) to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally, and to act in accordance with the general obligations on government to promote equality and prevent discrimination; (ca) to promote the interests of the whole community represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the goal of a shared future; (cb) to participate fully in the Executive Committee, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council; (cc) to observe the joint nature of the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister; (cd) to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts as set out in paragraph 6 of the St Andrews Agreement; (ce) to support the rule of law unequivocally in word and deed and to support all efforts to uphold it; (cf) to work collectively with the other members of the Executive Committee to achieve a society free of paramilitarism; (cg) to challenge all paramilitary activity and associated criminality; (ch) to call for, and to work together with the other members of the Executive Committee to achieve, the disbandment of all paramilitary organisations and their structures; (ci) to challenge paramilitary attempts to control communities; (cj) to support those who are determined to make the transition away from paramilitarism; (ck) to accept no authority, direction or control on my political activities other than my democratic mandate alongside my own personal and party judgment; (d) to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government; (e) to operate within the framework of that programme when agreed within the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly; (f) to support, and to act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly; (g) to comply with the Ministerial Code of Conduct."

That is the expectation for Ministers and, similarly, for Members. We have an expectation. We have taken the Pledge of Office, and we should hold to it. There are, of course, matters for law-making institutions, but Members will know that I cannot enforce in respect of those. They are matters for others: the PSNI, the Commissioner for Standards and, indeed, the House, if it wants to bring a sanction upon an individual Member. What does sit with me is the conduct of the debate today. You know that I am a Speaker who pretty much lets things flow and allows Members to get it out. I will, however, expect a little more restraint today and seek to ensure that we do not engage in a way that inflames tensions further. We have a problem out there, and we need to get over that problem. We need to be about making a better health service, better education, better infrastructure — all the things that the public want and demand.

I give that background before we get into the debate. I know that feelings will be strong, but let us ensure that we do not inflame tensions further.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Parades Commission made a lawful determination, permitting 35 members of Portadown District LOL No 1 to return peacefully and silently from their church parade, via the Garvaghy Road, after 28 years. That ruling was upheld by the courts, and it must be respected. For 28 years, Sinn Féin and others told Portadown Orangemen and the wider Northern Ireland public to abide by the Parades Commission's determination. This is the question today: what has changed?

The rule of law cannot mean that a determination is respected only when people agree with it. Peaceful protest is a legitimate part of any democratic society, but protest does not confer a right to unlawfully obstruct a lawful procession, nor does it confer the right for mob rule. If, as is clearly the case, there is evidence that any elected representative committed or encouraged an offence, they must be pursued and prosecuted in line with the law. Michelle O'Neill, a self-proclaimed First Minister for all, conducting the orchestra on the Garvaghy Road and taking part in and encouraging participation in what was an unlawful protest, represents a flagrant breach of the law and her obligations under the Pledge of Office.

When we see a First Minister, Members of Parliament and a Principal Deputy Speaker of this House actively engaged in criminality, the public are right to be angry.

There must be consequences for lawmakers who become lawbreakers. Sinn Féin and SDLP representatives linked arms illegally across the road with known violent dissident republican terrorists, and that must have consequences, something in which the Alliance Party and the Justice Minister used to believe. It seems that there is one standard for unionists and another for republicans.

We see the hypocrisy, but let us be clear: it simply cannot be business as usual in this place. In any democracy, unequivocal support for the rule of law and policing is foundational. That is where we stand. The question now is what the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Chief Constable will do to ensure that the law is upheld.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

This is a defining moment for the future of the Stormont institutions. The Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister have one simple question to answer: is it the rule of law or mob rule that prevails in Northern Ireland?

I commend the Portadown district on how it has conducted itself at every stage of its application to lawfully return 35 Orangemen home after 28 long years. The simple fact of the matter is that the district has done everything right. It modified its application. It was willing to engage in mediation. It forced the biased Parades Commission to fulfil its obligation under domestic and, somewhat ironically, European law. It exhausted all the legal processes, and, when challenged in court, it won not once but twice.

While I commend the Orange Order, I record my disgust at the Members, including the First Minister, the Finance Minister and the Principal Deputy Speaker, who openly broke the law by participating in an illegal protest that stopped the lawful parade of the Orangemen returning home. I also register my disgust at SDLP Members, the so-called advocates of a new Ireland, who tell us time and again that everyone will be respected. Mr McNulty grinned as he posed beside Breandán Mac Cionnaith, the man who bombed the heart out of Portadown. In the eyes of Mr McNulty, that man, who shook the very fabric of Portadown, was a steadying force in his community.

The weekend also once again exposed the double standards of the Alliance Party. Let me quote the Justice Minister, speaking in 2021:

"I know people struggle with the notion of the rule of law applying to everyone equally, but it should. And as Justice Minister, it isn't virtue signalling to uphold the law: it's part of my job."

Yet there has not been one word of condemnation from the Justice Minister of the Sinn Féin MLAs who locked arms to stop a lawful parade returning home.

That brings me to the core of the issue. If we are to have any confidence in the courts and the rule of law, the parade must go ahead. "No parade, no Stormont" should be the message from unionism today.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

This debate reflects the tribute that my colleague Pat Sheehan paid to Pól de Buitléir. Pól was born into a state that treated him and his family as second-class citizens. It violently beat those who demanded civil rights off the streets, and its armed forces attacked and killed people — all in pursuit of maintaining the status quo and ensuring that there were second-class citizens in this society. I and other Sinn Féin Members stood on the Garvaghy Road over the weekend to ensure that there will never, ever be a return to second-class citizenship in this society and that no one, on behalf of anyone, will beat people off the streets ever again.

What is this all about? The people of the Garvaghy Road and the people of Portadown, whether they live in Redmanville, Killycomaine or Corcrain, are being used by those who want to draw this society backwards. They are being used by elements who are not acting in their interest. For 28 years, we have had relative peace on the streets of Portadown because a solution was found, but some people cannot continue to observe it. Members of the Orange Order march to their religious service on the first Sunday in July unhindered and unstopped. They go and have their service. They could return by the same route; they choose not to. It works, because the community can get on with its life.

The parade is steeped in a history of murder, violence, intimidation and supremacy. The first parade ever to take place there resulted in the murder of two Catholic farmhands not far from the church. How can a parade that started with such a beginning be seen as anything other than an act of intimidation and supremacy against the community that is being forced to host it?

I and other Sinn Féin Members will continue to stand with the people of the Garvaghy Road. If somebody from my community said, "John, I think we should march through the Shankill Road", "I think we should march through Markethill", or "I think we should march through Redmanville", do you know where I would stand? I would stand with the people of those communities in facing those people down.

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order, Members.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

People outside this Building are in utter despair that this is where we are as a society this afternoon. People who are old enough to remember the Drumcree dispute are traumatised because they are reliving the hurt and pain of that period and having to sit down with their children — children who should never have known that level of tribalism and sectarianism — and explain the history of that dispute.

There are no winners in this. This is a deliberate strategy of division. It is a zero-sum game. The residents, who are traumatised after the weekend, certainly do not win. The Orange Order does not win, as local accommodations will now be picked apart and more marches will be contested. The parties who win, however, are those who thrive on division and have nothing to offer this society but division, because they do not want to talk about their failure to deliver anything for the working-class communities that they purport to represent and have no vision for the future.

We need to get this off the streets and into mediation, because our history tells us that mediation, dialogue, respect and tolerance are the only way forward for this society. The residents in that area and people across Northern Ireland deserve that leadership now, because it has, sadly, been missing over the past weeks and months. We need to ask ourselves this: where do we want to go as a society? Do we want to relive the past for the hell of it and learn nothing from it, or do we want to move forward towards a genuinely shared future? That is the question before the Assembly today. I know what my answer is to that question. To be clear, it means knowing what, the law says, you can do but also knowing what is right for community relations. That is what we all need to reflect on.

We need to remain committed to these institutions. There needs to be cooperation with the investigations that will no doubt flow, unfortunately, from the weekend. All parties need to be committed to respecting the PSNI's role and upholding the rule of law.

Equally, we need to work through it in these institutions. This is when the institutions really matter, because, if power-sharing falls, others will seek to fill that void and drag this society backwards.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

We all have a duty to work for a better future for young people — I see pupils from my old school in the Public Gallery — and find a way through this issue, and that should weigh heavily on all of us today. However, it has to be founded on the rule of law, and two things can be true at once: we must respect the rule of law, and we can find a resolution that is peaceful and permanent.

I need to address the rule of law issue with Sinn Féin. It has never committed entirely to signing up to the rule of law. We saw it with policing, and now we see it with parades. We saw it during COVID with Bobby Storey's funeral, and we saw it on the Ormeau Road when Sinn Féin unlawfully petitioned the Chief Constable to get a man released and threatened to bring this place down unless an innocent officer was suspended. In a premeditated way, it went on to the streets and linked arms, and the First Minister was involved in encouraging people to engage in protest. The Finance Minister was present at an un-notified protest. The Economy Minister was present at an un-notified protest. Members of the Policing Board, who are supposed to hold the police to account in upholding the law, were breaking the law by not only having an un-notified protest but blocking the road.

Sinn Féin can take its view on the determination, but it could have said, "We are going to have a lawful protest. We are going to submit the form". The Orange Order and every other organisation, even the Boys’ Brigade, is asked to submit the form. We ask every organisation in the country to submit the form if they want to walk down our streets, but Sinn Féin could not submit that application. Sinn Féin could have asked people to stand on either side of the road and not block it, but it chose to block the road. The same people criticised people from a different community when they blocked the roads in 2013. They called for the police to take tough action and criticised them for not taking action initially. It is hypocrisy, and it is lawbreaking. You are eating through the legitimacy of this place like acid because of your conduct.

You sit and smirk. If one of my MLAs had been involved in an un-notified protest, I would have taken the whip off them this morning, because we have to obey the law of the country

[Interruption.]

You can mock and deflect all you want, but here is the reality: we need to find a resolution. I am glad that the Secretary of State is meeting the Orange Order. It has obeyed the law, and I congratulate it for that. We need to find a way to move on and find an off-ramp so that we can look after the people of this country. That is what we are sent in here to do, and they need and rely on us.

I also give the police my support. It is a tough job that they have to do, and it is sometimes made worse by people in this place. I support the PSNI, and I condemn Sinn Féin's lawlessness unconditionally.

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

It has been a difficult few days, particularly for the people of the Garvaghy Road. My party and my colleagues have engaged with and supported them over the past few days, and we did so without any apology, because those people have been through trauma. Anybody who knows the modern history of this place knows that, in what happened, particularly in the 1990s — as a previous Member said, it also happened long before then — that community has suffered an enormous amount and that that march is redolent of violence and deeply traumatic memories for that community.

Thirty years on, this question has to be and is being asked: in whose interests was it to open up that dispute, which was settled in the minds of all but a very small number of people? Who benefits from it? I will tell you who benefits: the people who want to divide this society and bring down devolved politics; people who do not believe in progress; and people who do not believe in the kind of Northern Ireland — the kind of island of Ireland — that we should all want to see, which is the kind of society that some of us experienced and got a glimpse of at the fleadh just over a month ago, that extraordinary moment of sharing something and celebrating one another in this city and this place. The people who dragged us back to the Drumcree dispute are the people who hate that and do not want it.

Let me be clear: the initial ruling from the Parades Commission was genuinely inexplicable. I have read it, and I do not understand it. I do not understand how it arrived at that conclusion. The frenetic 24 to 36 hours of legal proceedings that followed shocked and disoriented many people.

In relation to some of the points that have been made about the lawfulness of the peaceful protests made by residents and those who supported them, I say that it would have been virtually impossible, given that the final court ruling happened at 2.00 am, for a notification to have been alerted and processed. Therefore, I encourage Members who are swinging around digs and accusations to bear that in mind.

[Interruption.]

What I want to say more than anything else — Members across are sneering — is that they should reflect on the kind of society that they want to live in. They should reflect on what is good for all of us in Northern Ireland and what is good for the people who want to have PUL culture not just accommodated but celebrated, because what we have seen over the past few days is no advertisement for that.

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Time is up.

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

We stand with the people of the Garvaghy Road who want peace.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Gerry Carroll.

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

The SDLP stands with them.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I stood on the Garvaghy Road on Saturday night, and I was back again for most of Sunday, standing shoulder to shoulder with residents. I commend other parties and MLAs who did so, including the First Minister. I will tell the House what I saw. I saw elderly men and women who lived through 1997 refuse to be moved off their own streets. I saw a community that had been abandoned by every institution that was supposed to protect it.

Let us be honest about what happened over the weekend. The Parades Commission folded the moment that the DUP and TUV turned up the heat. What stopped the march at the weekend was not a determination or a judge; it was thousands of ordinary people linking arms in the rain for hours on end. There is an important lesson there that some would do well to learn.

For decades, people have been told to put their faith in the Parades Commission instead of their own organised strength. This weekend showed exactly what that faith is worth: not a jot. Now we are told that power-sharing could collapse. Let us be honest: if it does collapse, what will we lose? We will lose institutions in which the DUP weaponises the petition of concern to block equal marriage and reform of the minimum age of criminal responsibility and which it now lines up to use against the conversion therapy Bill. It is a party that is up to its eyeballs in scandals and that reaches for sectarianism every time to distract and divide people and get them to look the other way. Now it is calling for elected representatives' heads for their having the audacity — the absolute gall to do what? — to show solidarity with residents under siege from toxic Orange triumphalism.

For those not paying attention, I will give them a little reminder. Carla Lockhart MP stood alongside masked men hurling abuse at a peaceful march for Gaza in Scarva. Those men threw rocks and insults at journalists. Education Minister Paul Givan attended an anti-immigration protest in Lisburn, the day after a brutal stabbing, pouring petrol on the flames of racist hate. Was there a determination for that march? I suspect not. Was Carla Lockhart's presence at Drumcree church at the weekend lawful? I suspect not. It cannot be one rule for unionist MPs and Ministers and one for everybody else. We then have Members lecturing in the House about the rule of law. The hypocrisy is astounding. This institution is failing.

Members talked about the "mob" on the Garvaghy Road in a very insulting way. I have given Members a brief history of it.

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

There will be many varied views on Drumcree. They all have some merit, but there is simply no consensus on it. That is why the courts had to look at it following the Parades Commission's determination. However, it goes far wider than Drumcree. Far more other issues need to be dealt with.

First, we have to look at the Parades Commission. Having listened to what Members on all sides of the House have said, I say that it is clear that the Parades Commission no longer has the confidence of the House.

It is no longer fit for purpose and cannot continue. The Secretary of State needs to do something to rectify the situation, because it cannot go on that one side applauds the Parades Commission when it makes a decision that suits it, while the other side disses it, and vice versa. The Parades Commission is therefore a real issue.

One of the other main issues is adherence to the rule of law. We must have the rule of law in Northern Ireland, but Sinn Féin seems to be putting itself well above it. It is not just about standing in the middle of the Garvaghy Road with arms linked or standing there to protest. Cars were brought in to block the road. Lawful citizens from throughout the town and surrounding areas were unable to transit the Garvaghy Road because cars were blocking their way. That was unlawful. Lawfulness is a cornerstone of any society. We must think about that. I am incredibly disappointed in those elected MLAs who did not abide by the rule of law. I will be clear: I did not want the march that went past Scarva to happen and made representations to that effect, but do you know what? It did, because it was allowed to go past. I adhered to the rule of law and did not block it, and that is what I expect to happen right across Northern Ireland. It is what I expect from the Assembly. It is what I expect from us. We hold people to account but cannot even hold ourselves to account. Our Executive are now led by somebody who openly and flagrantly breaks the law, and we allow that.

My final point is about the police. The police are in an impossible position. We should not turn our fire on them. They have an important job to do, which is to safeguard the public, promote law and order and detect crime. It is not their issue that other people decided to break the law, so, please, let us not turn our fire on the police. Let us make sure that we direct it at where it needs to be directed: at a failing Parades Commission and at the lawbreakers who stood on the Garvaghy Road.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

What we saw in recent days goes beyond my comprehension, but what I understand very clearly, and what the nationalist people of the North understand very clearly, is that the Orange Order thinks that nothing has changed in the past 30 years. That is where it is wrong. It thinks that it can still do whatever it wants. It thinks that its want to walk down a road where it is not welcome is more important than the rights of the residents of that road to live free from sectarian intimidation. It is wrong in thinking that. If the Orange Order were to walk down the Garvaghy Road, it would be to trample over the graves of the 21 people who lost their life as a result of the Drumcree dispute. The nationalist people of the North got off their knees in the nineties, and we are not getting back down on them. They solved the Drumcree dispute. They won a peace for us all that we must now protect.

What I say to the person who tabled the Matter of the Day — to you, and to you, to you and to each and every single one of you — is this: you are an absolute disgrace. You are an embarrassment.

[Interruption.]

You have spent the past few weeks working away behind the scenes to try to drag us back to the past by trying to impose on us what is nothing more and nothing less than a supremacist, bigoted, sectarian hate-fest. I can tell you very clearly —.

[Interruption.]

I say it very clearly —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— that you will not —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— impose —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. Speak through the Chair, please.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will direct my remarks through the Chair. Nobody in the Chamber, or outside of it, will impose that parade on the residents of the Garvaghy Road. We are not going back. Sin é.

[Translation: That is that.]

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Before I address the remarks of the Members opposite, I will bring the House back to the point of remembering that the determination was lawful. It is a determination that was tested in the courts.

It is a determination that has the backing of the law in Northern Ireland: that 35 men can walk, with their collarettes, home from church and complete that parade. Let us remember that.

Let us address the protest notification. A protest notification for 5,000 people was put in by the residents' group. How proportionate is that to 35 Orangemen? Do you know what? It was withdrawn when they thought that they had won the first case. However, they lost in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court. Remember those things.

Can we talk about community relations? The Orange Order has said clearly that this is peaceful and that it wants no violence and no disruption to ordinary people's lives. It has said that over and over again, but what do we have? We have the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland and other Ministers of Northern Ireland calling people out to block roads somewhere else. What are some Assembly Members and the Principal Deputy Speaker of the House doing? They are illegally blocking roads at the absolute direction of senior members of the IRA who were on the Garvaghy Road yesterday. Shame. It is nothing but a sectarian hate fest from you.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Through the Chair, please.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

May I say this, Mr Speaker?

[Interruption.]

I will be heard on this point. Nothing is more important than the preservation of the rule of law, and it is absolutely fundamental to the way democracy operates.

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order, please. The Member will be heard.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

It is fundamental to the way democracy operates.

I also say this to the Justice Minister, who does not know whether Michelle O'Neill broke the law: that is a shameful position for the Justice Minister to be in. She spent much more time at the weekend attacking Gavin Robinson than she did —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. Time is up.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

— understanding what was happening on the Garvaghy Road.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, I do not intend to rise to the bait that is being laid by others in the House. You appealed to us to be responsible and to be aware of the moment that we are in.

I know exactly where I was on 27 September 1995: I was getting married. My husband was working in Lurgan, and I recall with clarity and profound sadness the years of the Drumcree dispute. Like many others who lived through that period, I have found it depressing, disturbing and almost unbelievable as I have watched the latest saga unfold. I sympathise with those on the Garvaghy Road, those in Portadown and those across Northern Ireland who share that bemusement. Young people who have no recollection of the dispute have had to be told what it is about. Young police officers who were not even born when the PSNI was formed were having "SS RUC" taunts and other sectarian nonsense shouted in their faces when they are there to protect the public on both sides of the dispute. That is not acceptable.

The year 1998 marked the Good Friday Agreement, as well as the ending of the Drumcree dispute. That was supposed to be a new start for this community and an opportunity to build a better future for all of us and ensure that the next generation would not have to relive those traumas. That expectation was based on a shared understanding of the rule of law and that it applied equally to everyone. There is no other foundation on which a society can exist. It was based on a commitment to build peace and find reconciliation. From the moment that this issue re-emerged, it has felt like Pandora's box has been opened, unleashing an entirely predictable, destructive and wholly avoidable sequence of events in which there will be no winners, only losers.

In a conversation with the Secretary of State last night, however, I was reminded that, when Pandora's box was finally closed, all that remained was hope. That is the challenge for the Chamber today: how do we offer hope for those who feel utter despair? Where is the leadership to collectively navigate through this? Are we willing to do the hard yards of reconciliation? If we are not, we are condemning future generations to relive the worst parts of our past, and we offer them nothing.

I make a direct appeal to the Orange Order, as fellow Christians, to put reconciliation first. You have established your rights, but, for the greater good of society, you do not need to exercise them. Take the moral high ground, like the Christian men you are —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Time is up.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

— and allow this to come to a conclusion.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

First, let me say that I am really proud to support the determined and resilient people of the Garvaghy Road, who have conducted themselves with absolute dignity over recent days and weeks. Over the past couple of days, I talked to many people in that community who are utterly dismayed by what has happened and by how some seem so determined to drag us back. They do not understand why the issue, which, they thought, was settled, is being picked at or why their community, which has lived in relative peace for 28 years, is being thrown into turmoil.

It is bad enough that you do not care about the fear, the trauma and the re-traumatisation of the Garvaghy Road community, which has been hugely difficult for them. However, what I find galling is that those who regularly and readily pontificate at us about speaking up for this place or not allowing anyone to talk it down seem not to give a thought to how the North is perceived across the world as such events play out. There are people who have been putting in work collectively across our communities over the past three decades building peace, strengthening and regenerating our communities, building our economy to a point where we are world-leading in some sectors and creating a hugely successful tourism offering, but all of that is being undermined by attempts to force an unwanted, triumphalist and sectarian march down the road of a community that does not want it.

In the aftermath of the disgraceful race riots a couple of months ago, which, of course, were not helped by the dog-whistling commentary of some Members across the Chamber, I heard concerns from many in our tourism and business sectors that the imagery seen on TV and social media was reminiscent of and reinforcing negative perceptions of this place. The positivity of the fleadh was widely seen as undoing all of that negativity and promoting this place as what it can be and actually is. It seems, though, that some in unionism and loyalism are determined to drag us back. The negative tactics have failed this weekend, and they will continue to fail. Our communities have moved on, and our society has moved on. We have had 28 years of peace and progress to build on. Our people deserve that to be protected, and we will make sure that it is. There is no going back, only forward. We are absolutely determined about that.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thirty-five Orangemen, silently parading at 8.00 am on a Sunday on their way home from church: that is what we are talking about in the face of the intolerance, abuse and vilification that has been directed at them. What is their crime? It is purely for being Protestant. That is the sectarian motivation of those who are in opposition to them. I say this to the unionist and loyalist community: do not be goaded by Sinn Féin and republicans. They are engaged in a direct attempt to incite violence and instil hatred. My appeal to those in our communities is this: do not respond to their dog-whistle tactics.

Let us contrast the dignity of the Orange Order with the behaviour that was witnessed on the Garvaghy Road, with Sinn Féin Members and Breandán Mac Cionnaith demanding of the people, "Do not let the f-ers down the road". He is an angry man. Do not take my word for it; read what Tony Blair said about him. He has the gold medal for being the most unreasonable of the unreasonable.

That is who is leading Sinn Féin by the nose. No shared society. No equality. No accommodation of 35 silent Orangemen. Not acceptable to Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin is checking out of devolution. Devolution will no longer operate, according to Sinn Féin, on the basis of shared accommodation and equality. It is supremacy. It is majority rule. Sinn Féin will learn the lesson: we will not tolerate that. We will continue to uphold the rights of our people and our rights to have a proper, shared society, not one that is built on how Sinn Féin views it. We will not be led by or intimidated by Colin Duffy standing on the Garvaghy Road. Whenever there is no resolution, the "off-ramp", to quote Mr Burrows, is the law. It is the rule of law when there cannot be an accommodation. This has been lawfully determined and adjudicated by the courts. That is the off-ramp when there is no further mediation that can be followed.

On the rulings of the court, Sir Declan Morgan said:

"Adherence to these principles is fundamental to the nurturing and survival of democracy. It is all the more important in a post-conflict society for those in positions of leadership to promote, support and demonstrate assiduous adherence to the principles of the rule of law. Without such leadership, the risk of lapsing back into an openly fractured and lawless society cannot be underestimated. That is the importance of the issues at the heart of this case and that it is why it is vital for this Court to fearlessly" —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— "and impartially proclaim the importance of the principles of the rule of law".

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Justin McNulty.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is the rule of law that must prevail.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Justin McNulty.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Not mob rule.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Justin McNulty.

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

I was humbled and proud to stand with the residents of the Garvaghy Road from Saturday through Sunday. When I arrived on the road after midnight on Saturday, I experienced the foreboding atmosphere and was struck by the sense of determined defiance in everyone's eyes. I spoke to countless residents, who stressed that they were not there for themselves but that they were there for their children. They do not want their children and their grandchildren to experience the same horrors that were part of their lives relating to the Drumcree march when they were growing up. I spoke to the Tír na nÓg ladies Gaelic football players, who came out in the middle of the night to support their parents, their aunties, their uncles and their neighbours after their gut-wrenching injury-time defeat in the county final. I applaud them. I applaud each and every person who came out on to the Garvaghy Road in such a dignified and determined manner. When a community comes together, united by a just and shared cause, it is deeply powerful. You should all stand tall; you should all stand proud.

The residents and the people of the North, including large swathes of unionism, want Stormont to see sense. They want political leadership that does not allow tensions to boil over. They want their peace protected and to get on with their lives, to raise their families and to go to work and school without worrying about the divisions of the past. For the residents of the Garvaghy Road, Drumcree is not a distant memory. The people of the Garvaghy Road should not be forced to relive the fear, the trauma and the violence of the past. This is not about just 35 men walking down the street. It is a demonstration of dominance: a reminder of the past when 21 people —

[Interruption]

— 21 people, including children, were killed. As Bríd Rodgers has stated regarding Drumcree, "Let sleeping dogs lie".

Hundreds of parades occur each year without an issue, but this one should not have been permitted because of a technical blunder by the Parades Commission. It is an irresponsible choice by the Parades Commission, the Secretary of State and others who allowed that parade to go on. It can only be described as fanning the flames of division. Nobody — I say again, nobody — should be using this situation to inflame sectarian tensions. We need now only to hear messages of calm. The Secretary of State, the UK Prime Minister and the Taoiseach need to do all in their power to de-escalate the situation and protect our peace and to move all our communities, together, forward positively. Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine.

[Translation: People live in one another’s shadow.]

We rely on one other for shelter from the storm.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This was a time for leadership. Holding the post of First Minister or any ministerial position brings with it clear responsibilities and obligations, not just to lead but, of course, to urge calm heads and call people off the streets, to uphold the law and to be responsible. That is not optional; it is baked into the roles that we hold. It is what we are legally obliged to do.

At the weekend, we witnessed the total abdication of leadership by Michelle O'Neill. When the situation called for calm heads, Michelle O'Neill called people on to the streets, joined them and called for them to stay there. When her obligation was to uphold the law, Michelle O'Neill not only broke the law but encouraged others to do so. When the people of Northern Ireland needed responsible leadership, Michelle O'Neill decided to make populist, political stump speeches, to break the law, to defy a lawful decision of the courts and to encourage others to do so. Michelle O'Neill decided to follow the law of the mob, not the law of the land, and that matters. It matters. Michelle O'Neill decided, along with so many others on the Benches across from me, to stand shoulder to shoulder with IRA members and dissidents — shoulder to shoulder.

John O'Dowd talked about the history in which things are steeped. Sinn Féin is steeped in the history of murder.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Sinn Féin is steeped in the history of sectarianism.

A Member

Have you looked at your own history?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Sinn Féin is steeped in the history of blood.

[Interruption.]

That is what people are so angry about out there. They are sick of hypocrisy.

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Sinn Féin talks about respect, civil rights and human rights. The courts upheld the basic civil rights and human rights of the Portadown Orangemen. That is what the courts did. The decision was scrutinised, and the courts upheld it. That was denied by Michelle O'Neill, those in Sinn Féin and other people who decided to defy the law. You can protest. You could have protested lawfully. Instead, you decided to stand against the civil rights and human rights of others. Showing a modicum of respect for those with a cultural tradition that differs from yours does not make anybody a second-class citizen. That does not threaten anybody, but, importantly, everyone must be equal under the law. There is not one rule for Michelle O'Neill and another rule for everybody else. That rule must apply equally. We should all uphold that law.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

The Parades Commission exists because the issues involved are incredibly difficult. They are emotional, and they carry history, identity, hurt and loss. Almost 30 years ago, we recognised that such decisions could not simply be left to whoever shouted the loudest or threatened violence. Therefore, we created an independent body that was empowered by law to make those decisions. Over the years, the Parades Commission has made determinations with which people have agreed and profoundly disagreed. If the commission follows the law, its procedures and the evidence that is before it, we do not have to agree with its decisions, but we can challenge them and protest peacefully against them. Ultimately, however, we have to respect the lawful process.

That principle has to work both ways. I have been very critical of the Parades Commission in recent weeks for its failure in dealing with Drumcree, particularly given how sensitive the issue is. I still believe that those failures warrant resignations, because, ultimately, they led to this situation. Law and process, however, matter. If the commission expects communities to live by its determination, it absolutely has a responsibility to follow its own procedures, but we cannot simply disregard a lawful determination that is made because we do not like the outcome.

We need to acknowledge something else. For most of Northern Ireland, Drumcree disappeared from view, but it did not disappear for all the people who were involved. Applications, determinations and protest continued. The absence of violence and headlines did not mean that reconciliation had happened. It meant that the issue had been contained. That is, perhaps, the saddest part of all. Almost 30 years on, we are still talking about unionist areas and nationalist areas. We are still marking territory and talking about shared public space as though it belongs to one tradition over another. It belongs to all of us.

I understand that people carry memories and trauma from what happened at Drumcree, whether directly, for those involved, or indirectly, for those across Northern Ireland. We are a post-conflict society, yet we have never dealt with the trauma of being in conflict. Those experiences matter. Equally, others have spent almost three decades believing that something that is important to them was left unresolved. I encourage everyone, including those in the House, to scratch beneath the surface before deciding what motivates the person who stands opposite them.

I say this: try to understand why it matters to them, not because you have to agree and not because every action should be executed but because assuming immediately that another person is motivated by hatred, provocation and intolerance leaves us with nowhere to go. Reconciliation surely asks more of each one of us. It asks us to recognise that people can hold values and experiences different from ours and still find a way of sharing the same space.

There is a responsibility on the House too. When I was driving to Belfast this morning, I saw people going to work and kids going to school, simply getting on with their day-to-day lives. That puts all of this into perspective. Whatever happens politically over the remaining months of the mandate, the job goes on, and we need to ensure that it does.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

It is utterly disgraceful that the small and legal parade by 35 Orangemen leaving from Drumcree church with no accompanying band was prevented yesterday by an illegal roadblock on the Garvaghy Road. The Members of the Assembly who took part in that illegal roadblock conducted a gross breach of their Pledge of Office. Respect for the rule of law is a fundamental requirement for everyone in society, particularly those elected as legislators. Those who make the law should follow the law, not mob rule.

Nationalist representatives from Sinn Féin, the SDLP and People Before Profit have behaved disgracefully in the matter. They have broken the law and encouraged others to break the law. They have not supported tolerance of our different cultures in Northern Ireland. They have harked back to the distant past in an attempt to justify their intolerance. Nationalist representatives want to support Parades Commission determinations when they suit them but break the law when determinations do not suit them. That is not the action of a party of government. It is not a positive vision of any sort of future that they want to sell us. It is a nightmare that we will never buy.

Breandán Mac Cionnaith has blatantly stated that he refuses to enter into any negotiations. His intolerance cannot be rewarded with a veto. The Parades Commission determination for the Drumcree parade that should have happened yesterday is in keeping with the model in north Belfast. For years, republicans attacked the Twelfth of July return parade for the Ligoniel lodges. I took part in that return parade many times over the years, returning to my home in Ballysillan. I remember having to protect my children as they walked beside me and we were pelted with golf balls and stones thrown from the front of the Ardoyne shops and from the Ardoyne Road. Since 2013, that return evening parade has been prevented by the Parades Commission. However, since 2024, the Parades Commission has permitted a return parade in the early morning for the Ligoniel lodges. That small parade has passed off without incident and, indeed, without opposition. That is what should have happened yesterday in Portadown. Instead of hyping up the situation, nationalist representatives should have encouraged tolerance of their unionist neighbours on their traditional parade.

We in the DUP will stand by the Portadown district lodge. We stand by its disciplined and determined stand and by its legal right to complete its notified parade —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

— back to its Orange hall.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Let me respond directly to the Benches opposite. The only party in the Chamber that is steeped in a history of murder, intimidation and sectarianism is Sinn Féin. For all its lauded words to distract from where we are and not content on Saturday with its republican mob intimidating elected unionist representatives — Sinn Féin Members talk about being the defender of females but were happy to stand idly by as Mrs Diane Dodds and Carla Lockhart were chased, spat at and threatened — there was not a word from the so-called defenders of women's rights.

At the heart of all this is law and order. Members on the Benches opposite speak eloquently about second-class citizens, but the only people whom Sinn Féin and the SDLP want to be second-class citizens are members of the Orange institution. The law has clearly stated that they have the right —.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

[Inaudible.]

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I will be heard, Ms Sheerin. You can scream like a banshee all you want, but you will not stop me speaking.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Wise up. Settle down.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

You will not stop me speaking.

Mr Speaker, Sinn Féin does not like the law. It has moved on from the days of murdering members of the judiciary to openly trying to defy its rulings. The only people who brought disruption to the Garvaghy Road were those in the republican mob that stood on it at the weekend. The children of the Garvaghy Road were unable to go to school today because the so-called First Minister for all stood side by side with convicted terrorists, calling people on to the streets. The First Minister used to speak of "unionist brothers and sisters", but that language has been replaced by that of Breandán Mac Cionnaith's "Orange bastards". We in the Chamber will stand by the rule of law. Sinn Féin may not like it, but it does not get to dictate who sets the law in this country.

I say this directly to the SDLP: I know that you are in electoral decline, but, by tying yourself to Sinn Féin, you will be eaten up by it.

[Interruption.]

Mr McNulty, standing side by side with Breandán Mac Cionnaith —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

— is not going to win you your selection battle. You are still going to be deselected by your party. You stood beside Colin Duffy, a man charged with the killing of two members of the army. That is the man beside whom you claim to be proud to stand.

I agree with the First Minister that we are not going back to the days of the past. The days of republican threats dictating the law of this land are over. The days of Sinn Féin intimidating unionists are over. We will ensure that the rule of law is followed.

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order, Members. That concludes the Matter of the Day.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Is it a point of order?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Yes.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

It had better be.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Mr Speaker, it was said often that the Members who took part in Sunday's demonstration were part of a mob. Frankly, I do not care what people call me —.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Mob rule, Gerry.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I am making the point.

I do not care what people call me, but I question whether it is moderate or temperate language to refer to the people of the Garvaghy Road.

I remind Members that the great socialist James Connolly once said:

"All hail, then, to the mob, the incarnation of progress!"

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Let us move on.

Members' Statements

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

The people of the Garvaghy Road should have every right to expect to live peacefully and without fear in their homes and in their community. For the past 28 years, they have been able to move forward on that basis. Unfortunately, a reckless, disastrous and shocking decision by the Parades Commission, at the behest of rejectionist unionists, has forced that local community and its residents to relive a past that they had tried so hard to forget by forcing an unwanted parade through their community. The dispute about that triumphalist and sectarian parade cost 21 citizens of the North their life over a three-year period, including three innocent children — Richard, Mark and Jason Quinn — in my constituency, who were murdered in their home during the Drumcree dispute in 1998. Let their names remind us of the cost of that sectarian parade. The days of the Orange Order holding the people of the Garvaghy Road and the people of Ireland to ransom are over, and they are not coming back.

I was proud to stand with the residents on the Garvaghy Road over the weekend; indeed, people across Ireland, whether they were there in person or watching from their home, are rightly proud to stand with the people of the Garvaghy Road. It is an issue of equality, an issue of right and wrong.

As a resident of Dunloy, I know how communities fear such triumphal parades. No community — this includes the people who live on the Garvaghy Road — should have to live in fear in their own homes and have unwanted parades forced through their community. The people of the Garvaghy Road, and, indeed, people across the island of Ireland, deserve to be treated with equality and respect and to be permitted the simple request to live in peace.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I lament what happened at the weekend. There are two aspects to it. The first is about the fulfilment of rights. We should all be concerned about that. Even if we do not belong to a particular community or people, we should make sure that that community or those people enjoy the same rights as every other citizen in the country. That has not always been the case in this place. Look back at how people were treated and discriminated against during the COVID years. We should adhere to the principle that everyone deserves to live in peace and freedom. The people of the Garvaghy Road deserve to live in peace and freedom, and that was denied to them yesterday by Sinn Féin-oriented protests. Mr McGuigan, who is a constituency colleague of mine, knows full well that he and I, along with others, work tirelessly in our communities to ensure that Parades Commission determinations go off peacefully. There are some of those decisions that I will not agree with, and there are some that he will not agree with, yet we get by. What happened this weekend represented intolerance of the highest order. It denied people their rights — that is the bottom line. If you cannot afford 35 men two minutes to walk down a road at 8.00 am, you have major issue with fundamental rights. When a protest is orchestrated that blocks people in their homes for 24 or 48 hours, the orchestrators of that protest have a fundamental problem with rights.

The second aspect to what happened at the weekend is a major issue that will face the country, its people, this establishment and the Executive. That is the fact that people here who are in positions of power and responsibility, including the First Minister, a Deputy Speaker, Ministers, MLAs, councillors and members of the Policing Board, took part — my colleague from North Antrim, Sinn Féin MLA Philip McGuigan, just admitted that he took part — in an illegal protest. I expect the police to be knocking on Philip's door — I really do — and I would hope that they will practise the rule of law. I also expect people to complain to the standards commissioner, because of the rules by which we abide: the ministerial code. That should be taken seriously. It states that Ministers will pledge:

"(a) to discharge in good faith all the duties of office; (b) commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means ... (cd) to uphold the rule of law based ... on the fundamental principles ... (ce) to support the rule of law unequivocally in word and deed".

You have failed. You have failed Northern Ireland. You have failed your own people and all the people of Northern Ireland.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I will call it as it is. Last week, I waited with bated breath to see what the Parades Commission would come up with. As I was sitting in my home, what shocked me about the whole thing was when my daughter, who is in her early 20s, said that she was afraid. She did not live through the Troubles and does not know what it was like, but she was afraid because of what was happening. The majority of people in Northern Ireland who have not been involved in that process and are outside the Drumcree bubble that has been created are asking, "Why are we going back to something like this? Why are we doing this to ourselves? Why are we allowing this to happen?". Young people were not born when the Good Friday Agreement came along and have no idea what my childhood was like. My words at the weekend were, "At least nobody has been killed — yet". Ordinary people are asking, "Why are we doing this?". That really calls attention to the requirement for reconciliation. Maybe if the Orange Order had sat down with the residents of Garvaghy Road in advance, —

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It asked.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

— and said, "We're looking to talk together and have a discussion", —

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Mediation was offered.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

— without the politicians who like to be loud, and said, "Let's do this", —

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

[Inaudible.]

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

— and the residents said, "Yes, we're up for negotiation", that would have been one thing.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

They refused.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Gaston, order.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Why is this happening now? We have no Budget, but the two larger parties are tied up with a conflict and a disgraceful situation that goes back years. The House must remember

[Interruption]

that, come February and March, teachers, civil servants and hospital workers will not be paid because there will be no Budget in place. We will run out of money. Let us get back to what we are supposed to be doing in the House — running the country, not running it into the ground.

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

The weekend was what can only be described as absolutely and utterly depressing. It was depressing for everybody. A fundamental question has to be asked of politicians across the House who are bound to show leadership in their elected office: what did the actions of the weekend achieve? What does marching down the Garvaghy Road achieve? What purpose does it serve? It serves only to inflame and flare up tensions and remind people of our darkest and most difficult, challenging days. Twenty-one people died during those days. Twenty-one families suffered and were destroyed. That is the human cost of division. We should know, more than most, how easily the temperature can rise to those levels. We left the door to the march down the Garvaghy Road closed, 28 years ago, and it is a sorry sight for all of us to see that it has been allowed to be reopened.

I have heard the parties in the House talk about rights — people's rights have been thrown about almost like a ping-pong ball. The reality is that people outside the Chamber who are watching the House want a simple thing. They want what was promised to them in 1998 — a society where people can live in peace and harmony, side by side, respectfully and in understanding of each other. The reality is that, in my 12 years in the House, I have never seen it so energised as it is now. I do not see the same level of anger or slurs across the House when it comes to our health service, children suffering in poverty or people waiting for a house. That brings us back to the fundamental point of why we were elected — to solve problems and improve people's lives. What about the rights of people who are on hospital waiting lists, the rights of those who are waiting to get a home, the rights of the families who want support for their children with special educational needs? What about those rights? The House does not get as energised about those rights. We get more energised about what divides us than what unites us. We have been through much worse. We need to realise that people outside of here are sick of it. No party in the House dare claim to speak for the entirety of one side of the community over the other. The people whom I am speaking to are sick, sore and tired of the same old messing about.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I find it interesting that the Members on the Benches opposite who had so much to say about my defence of the Garvaghy Road residents have scurried out of the Chamber, just when I have something to say about that issue.

Much has been said this morning. I was with the Garvaghy Road community over the past few days, and I was incredibly proud and privileged to be with them. It is a strong and resilient community — a community that has had to come through the hardest of times. It needed our support. When I think about what that community has come through, and about the generations of sectarian dominance and intimidation and violence, I am mindful of the fact that, in the past few weeks, we have had the report into the murder of Robert Hamill, who was killed — kicked to death — because he was a Catholic in that community. I am minded of the three Quinn children, those beautiful kids who were burned to death in their home because of what happened being revisited on that community. I am thinking of Michael McGoldrick and of Rosemary Nelson. I listened to the powerful testimony of her son last night, and I encourage those people across the Chamber to listen to it

[Interruption]

because that goes to the heart of what this is all about.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What about your murders?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

May I invite yourself and all those within unionism —.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What about all those who

[Inaudible.]

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

May I invite you into 2026? The days of unionist supremacy and domination are gone.

[Interruption.]

We will not be going backwards; we are about the future. I have heard a lot today about the health service and education, and those things are valid, but so too is the right of the people of the Garvaghy Road not to be trampled upon.

It is right and proper that people stood with the community on the Garvaghy Road over the past couple of days. Those who wanted to force that march down that road need to give their heads a shake. Why does the Orange Order, the DUP and unionism in general want to railroad over the rights of those people? That is the question. Why do you want to trample over those people? Well, we will not accept that. The Garvaghy Road residents do not want that. They are entitled to live their lives free from fear and intimidation. I will assert that right for them all day long and every day, and I will come into the Chamber and say that to you. This is important, but this is 2026, folks, and we are not going back.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

The rule of law is the foundation of any Government, and because so much today has been fixated on hatred of the Orange Order and unionist people, I feel that the whole conversation has moved away from that. The Finance Minister, like myself, was in court on Saturday night into the early hours of Sunday morning and heard the ruling of the court. He heard that the points to try to overrule the determination were unarguable and the ruling was made. That was a matter of law, a legal determination for that parade. The Finance Minister said that the issue of Drumcree was closed and settled. No, it was not. The Portadown district has continued to apply, week after week for years, for the right to parade. The issue was never closed for them. Sinn Féin might say that it was closed, but it was not closed.

Every time that they got a determination that stated that they could not walk down the road, they respected the rule of law. This time, it was determined that they could go. That was the law. It was challenged in court, and that was applied. Suddenly, however, that could not be accepted. The rule of law is fundamental to us here in government, and for the First Minister, Finance Minister, Economy Minister and representatives from across Sinn Féin to put two fingers up to the rule of law undermines so much of what we are trying to do here.

[Interruption.]

Let us talk about Scarva, where there was a legally notified peaceful protest in place.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Masked men shouting at children.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

There was a peaceful protest, legally notified and determined by the Parades Commission. The police came in to police that determination, and they came in too hard. They did not come in and police the determination this weekend. In Scarva, it was a legal protest. That was not a legal protest at the weekend.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Masked men.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

You can say whatever you want.

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

[Inaudible]

masked men.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Maybe the Sinn Féin representatives should have been masked. Is that what should have happened there? I do not know. What I am saying is that the rule of law

[Interruption]

the rule of law is fundamental for us

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. Stop, stop. Members, you were heard, and there was some shouting. This Member will be heard. There can be a little shouting, but you go too far.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe in equal rights for everyone here, and you either uphold the rule of law or you do not. That is the question that I put to the Sinn Féin Members here today.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on the birth of your granddaughter Esther last week. I want to talk about children. I spent last week in the children's hospital at the Royal with my son, and I thank everyone for their comments and good wishes. There is nothing quite as humbling as being in the children's ward and seeing what the staff and doctors do every day.

It is heroic work, and it is underfunded. It is unbelievable that the children's hospital sits under the umbrella of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust when it is clearly a regional service with the best in each department. It creates a sanctuary for the most vulnerable children.

Thankfully, my son is fine, but, while I was sitting on the ward with him when he was on a ventilator, I looked at the other children who came on to the ward. What I noticed was that we are all the same: the other mothers were exhausted and worried; the other families were worried about what was going to happen to their children. I thought about them again over the weekend. I thought about the Quinn children — those precious children who died — and the people not just in Portadown but across Northern Ireland who were genuinely afraid that something was going to happen to their children. I then thought about how we do not see our issues through the lens of children enough. I speak out about what is happening in Gaza and Sudan because I care about children, just as I speak about allergies and about SEN. There is genuine fear in society right now.

I agree that the rule of law and process must be followed, but I also acknowledge that people are in pain and are genuinely afraid. It is one thing to have the right to do something and another to choose to do it, and I wonder about what happens next. I am really worried that this is a 'Sliding Doors' moment for Northern Ireland and worried about the ramifications of what we do next for the next generation. I am really worried about the children on the ward who are really sick. They need the health service to work for them. I am really worried about children with special educational needs, who need the Assembly to function because they need support.

The public have become so disillusioned with us that they do not think that we matter any more, but we matter and this place matters in creating conditions for every child in our society to thrive and to have the opportunities that they deserve. I am really worried that this place will collapse because we will have moved to a point where we do not have the grace or the dignity to see what is best. If we looked through the lens of our children, this place would be a lot better.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I believe in a simple principle: there is a difference between right and wrong. I want to live in a society where that distinction is not blurred, where the rule of law is upheld and where violence and intimidation are never excused because of the cause behind them. When I look at Sinn Féin, however, I see a different approach.

Time and time again, we see Sinn Féin politicians attending commemorations and honouring members of the Provisional IRA — men and women who carried out bombings, shootings and murders across our communities — yet my constituents are repeatedly told to shut up and put up with it. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, we know the terrible price of terrorism. Innocent victims are not statistics; they are husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers, sisters and neighbours. They were innocent people whose lives were taken and whose families were left to carry the pain for generations, yet Sinn Féin continues to participate in commemorations of the hunger strikers and terrorists, speaking of them in terms of honour and courage. Take Bobby Sands, a former MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and a member of the Provisional IRA who was convicted of possessing firearms. Take Jim Lynagh, a senior Provisional IRA figure associated with numerous terrorist attacks whom a Mid Ulster District Council chair commemorated as he stood with a banner depicting guns and paramilitary trappings. Those people continue to be commemorated in the republican movement.

That brings me to Garvaghy Road: 35 men walking down a road and trying to do so peacefully — no bands, no paramilitary displays, no terrorist trappings — under strict conditions imposed by the Parades Commission, yet Sinn Féin has chosen to oppose even that. Unionism will never be welcome in the united Ireland that, you say, would be inclusive of us: never. The mask has slipped again.

I will not allow the innocent victims of Fermanagh and South Tyrone to become footnotes. I believe in the rule of law. I owe it to the innocent victims of the Troubles to stand up for them and to call out Sinn Féin's absolute hypocrisy. I owe it to their families and the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, whom I am proud to represent. I will stand by the rule of law, unlike those on the Benches opposite.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is clear from the hysteria over the weekend that nationalism is in turmoil. Sinn Féin is using the people of the Garvaghy Road as part of its election campaign. Sinn Féin is gaslighting nationalists in general to hide its failures, such as being on the wrong side of history when it comes to immigration and its obsession with an open-border policy that puts people in Northern Ireland at risk. That is why it is latching on to this issue.

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

What are Sinn Féin's failures? No Casement, no A5, no Irish signage at Grand Central station — all those things that it was beating its chest about and saying that it would deliver. Let us look at its Ministers, such as the Minister for Infrastructure. Our waste water infrastructure is crumbling, and potholes litter our roads, yet the Minister focuses on getting signage at Grand Central. Let us look at our Economy Minister, who stood up today to talk about tourism. What about Cantor Fitzgerald? Her toxic past and that of Sinn Féin are driving jobs away from Northern Ireland. What about Mr O'Dowd, the Finance Minister? He cannot even set a Budget. He cannot even tell MLAs in the House what his demand is and what funding formula would allow him to have enough. That is Sinn Féin's mentality: always sticking the hand out. Like Oliver Twist, it is always looking for more and never getting enough. I trust that, this Thursday, the Secretary of State will hold true and set a Budget for Northern Ireland.

When a country becomes lawless — that is exactly where we are; that is exactly what we have seen from Sinn Féin — the institutions will be on the brink of collapse. All I ask is that everybody be treated the same under the law. When the farmers took to the roads to protest about fuel prices, which affect everybody, the police called at their houses that night to give them a caution. I trust that the same police will visit the First Minister of "no alternative", the Minister for the Economy and every Sinn Féin MLA, councillor and TD who were present on the Garvaghy Road over the weekend. There cannot be one rule for some and another rule for others. It is time that the PSNI applied the law equally. It should let the parade down the road, and it should ensure that those who illegally stopped the parade are held to account.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

There are several Members in the House who have broken the law in the last 24 hours. I expected that behaviour from the mouthpieces of the IRA. However, I did not expect it from the SDLP. In my constituency, the Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, called for protests against the Orange Order parade on the Garvaghy Road, which raises serious questions about the standards expected of a senior member of the Northern Ireland Executive. The Orange Order secured a Parades Commission determination permitting the Drumcree parade — a decision that was subsequently upheld by the High Court — yet, rather than respecting the lawful process, we saw Sinn Féin politicians, including senior members of the Executive, openly standing with those who blockaded the road in an attempt to prevent the parade from taking place. The police repeatedly warned those taking part that it was unlawful to block the road. That raises an obvious question for people such as Caoimhe Archibald. Does she believe that the rule of law applies equally to everyone in Northern Ireland? It cannot be acceptable for a Minister for the Economy to demand respect for the law when it suits her interests, while calling for a protest designed to prevent a parade that had received legal authorisation. She stood with individuals such as Sean McGlinchey, who murdered six pensioners in my constituency. What unsavoury company she keeps.

There must be one standard. If a lawful decision goes against you, the answer is to challenge it through the courts and the established processes, not to blockade roads and seek to prevent a parade through illegal pressure. The people of Northern Ireland want elected representatives who respect the rule of law, regardless of their background or whether they agree with the decision. They do not want to see them behaving like corner boys, which is what we saw yesterday. The same principle should apply whether the issue is an Orange parade, a nationalist demonstration or any other contentious public procession. Rights cannot be conditional on who is exercising them.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

That concludes Members' statements.

Assembly Business

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Nick Mathison has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member has up to three minutes in which to speak.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

After the exchanges that we have just had in the Chamber, it feels slightly incongruous to be presenting a highly localised petition to the Assembly. I make no apology for doing so, however, because there has not been much that has been constructive in the exchanges that we have heard today. I make it clear that my party colleagues and I remain committed to representing our constituents constructively, and that is what the petition that I am presenting today is all about.

The community of Darragh Cross is in the Strangford constituency. It is a small rural village, but a busy 40 mph road runs right through it. Residents on one side of the village who want to walk their children to school and those on the other side who want to cross the road to get to the local shop have to run the gauntlet every day to get past cars that are often driving at speeds well in excess of 40 mph. Even if the cars adhere to the speed limit, however, it is a dangerous crossing on a wide and busy road. The issue has been running on for years, and it is not just about the lack of a pedestrian crossing but about the appropriateness of the speed limit in the first instance. I pay tribute to the residents of Darragh Cross, particularly to one resident who reached out to me directly. He has a visual impairment and has advised me that, unless he is accompanied, he does not feel safe accessing services in his community. That cannot be acceptable.

Regrettably, year-on-year, the Department for Infrastructure has simply adopted a "Computer says no" policy, saying that, because the village does not have the requisite amount of frontage development on both sides of the road, it will not install a crossing. That cannot be acceptable. If a policy results in scenarios in which a resident of a community feels that he cannot get out and about to access services safely and parents are clear that they will not let their children walk to school in a quiet rural village, something is wrong with the policy.

I urge the Minister for Infrastructure to listen to the nearly 500 people of a very small settlement who have signed the petition and want to see the speed limit reduced and a safe pedestrian crossing installed. I urge her to engage with her officials and permit them to meet the residents and me on-site, because, unless they are on the ground and see the situation, they will not realise just how dangerous it is. The residents of Darragh Cross have been campaigning on the issue for years. I hope that the petition today gives voice to that campaign and that we can finally see some movement and progress.

Mr Mathison moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 28 September 2026 be extended to no later than 10.30 pm.

Question put.

Some Members

Aye.

Notice taken that 10 Members were not present. House counted, and, there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Deputy Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung. Upon 10 Members being present —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

We return to the motion to extend the sitting.

Resolved:

That in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 28 September 2026 be extended to no later than 10.30 pm. — [Ms Ennis.]

Committee Business

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the Committee on Standards’ report on proposed updates to the Assembly Members' code of conduct and the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members and agrees the proposed updates to the code and the guide, as set out in appendix 1 of the report.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. I call the Chair of the Committee on Standards to open the debate.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I rise on behalf of the Committee on Standards to present its report on the proposed updates to the Assembly Members' code of conduct and the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members. The code sets out the minimum ethical standards expected of all Members when carrying out their duties. It provides a clear framework of principles and rules of conduct for MLAs and helps to ensure openness, accountability and public confidence in the standards regime in the Assembly.

The report before the House recommends a number of updates to the code and guide arising from several distinct, separate developments. Those include the agreement of an unacceptable behaviours policy and advice from the Electoral Commission on Members' legal obligations under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. In addition, the recent change to the name of the Committee needs to be reflected, and the Committee has identified the need to clarify and improve certain provisions and exemptions. A revised version of the code and guide is included in appendix 1 of the report for the Assembly's consideration. That sets out the proposed amendments and tracked changes for ease of reference. Many of the proposed updates are technical or procedural in nature. However, I shall now outline the main proposals for the record.

A number of the proposed amendments flow from the development of an Assembly-wide unacceptable behaviours policy. The work on that was commenced by a cross-party working group in the previous mandate. The policy development continued in the current mandate, and, following public consultation and further consideration, the policy was refined and approved by the Committee and the Assembly Commission. It was introduced last week via communication from the Speaker to all MLAs and staff. Members are, therefore, not being asked to approve that policy today. However, a copy is provided in the appendices of the report, and it is important to note its purpose and impact on the code. The new policy was developed to provide a consistent approach to standards of behaviour and, in particular, unacceptable behaviour for everyone working for or within the Assembly. It sets out clearly that unacceptable behaviours, including bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation, will not be tolerated. It also establishes processes for raising complaints and for investigating those complaints in a way that reflects their sensitive nature.

To support the implementation of the policy with regard to complaints against MLAs and the work of the Commissioner for Standards, the Committee obtained legal advice on the procedural changes that were required. That included advice on any necessary amendments to the code and guide, Standing Orders and the procedures that are followed by the commissioner when considering complaints. There are three proposed changes to the code and guide that are intended to give effect to the policy insofar as it applies to complaints against MLAs.

First, a new paragraph is proposed within the additional "Assembly Principles of Conduct" section to clarify that the Assembly behaviour code is an aspirational principle of conduct for Members. We consider that it will provide for a more objective position than exists presently, since the behaviour code, which is caught by the existing rule 10, sets out standards of conduct that are framed in high-level terms that are open to interpretation.

Secondly, amendments are proposed to the "Rules of Conduct" section to make specific reference to the unacceptable behaviours policy and highlight its importance. Existing rule 10 would be separated into two rules, with the new rule 11 making explicit reference to the policy in the context of Members' obligation to observe and comply with policies, guidance and instructions that are published on behalf of the Assembly or the Assembly Commission.

Thirdly, the Committee considers it essential that all parties who are involved in a complaints process can have confidence in the confidentiality of that process. For that reason, a new paragraph was proposed within the introduction to the guide to the rules. That would emphasise Members' existing confidentiality obligations and highlight the particular relevance to complaints that are under consideration by either the commissioner or the Committee. As a brief aside, complainants or respondents under the unacceptable behaviours policy who are not MLAs will be required to sign a new confidentiality agreement since those parties are not bound by a similar code of conduct. The requirements of that agreement are time-limited when it comes to maintaining confidentiality from the point at which the complaint is submitted until its consideration has concluded.

On a separate matter, the Committee also proposes a number of amendments relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). Those changes to the guide were suggested by the Electoral Commission and relate to changes to Members' legal requirements. They include updated reporting thresholds for donations and loans, as well as changes to permissibility requirements for UK companies. The proposed amendments also reflect updated wording to the Electoral Commission's guidance for elected office holders and party members and reinforce Members' obligations under the PPERA.

The Committee is also proposing several important clarificatory amendments to the code and guide. One such amendment makes it clear that the existing exemption regarding conduct in the Assembly Chamber applies only to behaviour that falls within the Speaker's responsibility for maintaining good order under Standing Order 65. The amendment clarifies that the code continues to apply to other matters that occur within the Chamber, including the requirements regarding declaration of relevant interests and the protection of confidential information. Other amendments clarify that the code applies to Committee Chairpersons; in particular, they make clear that the existing exemption that relates to a Member who is acting exclusively in another political or public office does not extend to a Committee Chairperson who is carrying out that role.

Finally, a range of minor amendments are proposed throughout the document. Those reflect the change to the Committee's name from the "Committee on Standards and Privileges" to the "Committee on Standards" following the repeal of Standing Order 70, and include a number of typographical and drafting improvements.

The Committee believes that those changes will strengthen the operation of the code and guide, improve clarity for Members and the public and ensure that the Assembly standards framework remains effective, transparent and fit for purpose. I commend the report and the proposed revised code and guide to the House.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I rise to support the Chair's remarks on the proposed changes and to commend the work of the Committee over the past number of months and, indeed, years. It is a very good Committee, which works very well. The amendments to the unacceptable behaviours policy are common sense and are borne out of experience over the last number of years. They add to the code of conduct and the behavioural policies. It seems a bit surreal that we are speaking about good behaviour and codes of conduct in the week after the weekend that we have just had, but there you have it; this has been put down as an item of business in the House. I commend the work of the Committee and support the changes. They are common sense and will make for a better and more common-sense reading of the rules of conduct.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members, as Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then. This debate will continue after Question Time and the question for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to speak will be Connie Egan. Take your ease.

The debate stood suspended.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Before we begin questions to the Minister of Justice, I admonish myself for not being able to ask question 7 because I am in the Chair. There we go.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

1. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Justice to outline the safeguards the Prison Service is required to put in place when a prisoner is granted compassionate temporary release against the recommendation of the Prison Service. (AQO 3978/22-27)

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

6. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Justice to outline any standard operating procedures that were changed in the Northern Ireland Prison Service due to the court granting Gary Anderson compassionate leave. (AQO 3983/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 6 together. Where a decision by the Northern Ireland Prison Service to refuse compassionate temporary release is successfully challenged in the courts, the Prison Service is required to comply with the court's ruling. In such cases, the safeguards that apply during the period of release are those set by the court. If the court directs that a temporary release should be granted and specifies the conditions under which it is to take place, those conditions form the framework for managing the release. The Prison Service cannot unilaterally impose additional restrictions that would go beyond or conflict with the court's order.

In the case of Gary Anderson, the court directed that compassionate temporary release should be granted and set the conditions that were to apply. The Prison Service therefore implemented the court's decision in accordance with those directions. As the court's order provided the legal basis and conditions for the release, no changes were made to Prison Service standard operating procedures as a result of that case.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I know that the Kelly family will be relieved, rightly so, that that murderer is no longer roaming the streets. The case demonstrates the importance of the rule of law. The dogs on the street know that Michelle O'Neill stood proudly breaking the law and calling for others to do the same over the weekend. Will the Minister of Justice take this opportunity to state clearly and put on the record that Michelle O'Neill has broken the law?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, that question is not in the context of the original question. You may choose to answer it if you wish —

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

[Inaudible]

Mr Deputy Speaker.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

— but if not, I am more than happy to allow that.

[Interruption.]

I call Mr Frew.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister should have answered that question.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Are you challenging the Speaker now?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr Frew, you know as well as I do that you are not going to challenge the Chair. Let us have a question that is germane. I know that you probably have one. Let us go for it.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was certainly not challenging you; I was challenging the Justice Minister's non-answer.

We already know that there was a lack of communication between the Department's legal team and the Prison Service. It seems that the standard operating procedures had failed in this case, meaning that the Prison Service could not review the decision at the court's request. What lessons have been learned to date when it comes to the review? How did that breakdown in communication occur?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for what is a supplementary to the original question. I am more than happy to answer questions that are genuine supplementaries. When it comes to the issue of lessons learned, there was, of course, an immediate review of those proceedings. We have established the timeline and a number of communication errors. To correct the Member, however, the officials concerned were not my departmental legal officials; they were from the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), which resides within the Department of Finance.

As the Member will be aware, however, unlike him, I will not be reaching any conclusions before the urgent review that I have commissioned is undertaken. In this case, there were a number of failings that, I believe, went beyond simply the communication from the legal team. Whilst that was one of the failings that we have identified thus far, it is not the only failing. I will, of course, keep the House updated on the progress of the review. We are in the process of agreeing the terms of reference and notifying other Ministers and other public officials who may be affected by the review, as well as identifying the precise nature of the individuals who will take the review forward. As I said last week, however, I do not intend this to be a lengthy process, but I do intend it to be a robust and thorough one.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

How did the Prison Service become aware that Gary Anderson had absconded, and what action was taken by the PSNI subsequently?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Northern Ireland Prison Service presented Gary Anderson to Londonderry courthouse on Monday morning. There, after having the conditions of his compassionate temporary release read to him by Prison Service staff, he was passed to his court-appointed chaperone.

At 11.20 am on Monday, it was advised by the PSNI that it had been contacted by the chaperone who stated that Gary Anderson had absconded from his care and would not be returning to prison. The PSNI immediately put in place arrangements to alert the public, and I am assured that it devoted additional and dedicated resource on a 24/7 basis to secure the return of Gary Anderson to custody. The PSNI was also in regular liaison with colleagues in an Garda Síochána, given the geography of the particular area where Mr Anderson had absconded. I put on record my thanks to the PSNI and to an Garda Síochána for being able to ensure that he was brought back into custody.

Any consequences for the chaperone and, indeed, for Mr Anderson are ongoing legal matters. They will be under investigation by the PSNI. That said, there is no suggestion that the chaperone did anything inappropriate. That will be determined as a result of the investigation. It is not helpful to speculate at this point on any consequences that might flow from that.

The PSNI is also maintaining regular contact with the Kelly family. I put on record my thanks to Mark Durkan who facilitated a meeting for me and the director general of the Prison Service with the Kelly family last week. I am under no illusions as to the hurt and trauma that the matter has reawakened for them as a family and has caused them; nor am I under any illusions about the gracious nature of the family in the way that they conducted themselves when I met them last week.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, you have kept us well informed. I have no real issues with that. However, because of the huge media interest in the matter of Gary Anderson, were any precautions put in place with Sean Anderson that would have been able to stop him accessing a mobile phone, getting on the internet and going on to TikTok? It is a real fear of many victims that the perpetrator could end up abusing them once more.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

As you are aware, the two brothers are held separately because we believe them to be a bad influence on each other. Therefore, we believe that their being held separately is the appropriate way forward.

It is of profound regret that, despite the fact that an intelligence-led operation in Magilligan last Tuesday secured the phone, removed it from Sean Anderson and placed it in police custody — the police are now investigating how it got into the prison, because, obviously, that is contraband; it is illegal to own a phone in the prison system — we do not know yet how the information that was on TikTok was posted. I am sure that Members have seen it. It taunted me, as Justice Minister, the family, the victims and, indeed, the victims of many other offenders who are held in Magilligan and were photographed with Sean Anderson. We do not know how it made its way on to TikTok, whether it had already been transferred to a different person or how that was done. However, the mobile phone is now in police hands. They are doing an investigation, and there may well be charges resulting from that. Certainly, adjudication arrangements for Sean Anderson have now been put in place in the prison system.

The Member for Upper Bann rightly mentioned the impact of the matter on the family. It is not just the escape, which is hard enough; it is every mention of the case, every day. To see their brother Karol's face in the papers and on the news is traumatising. Therefore, I appreciate the sensitivity that Members have shown in asking their questions respectfully and when speaking to me, privately and in the Chamber, because I recognise that, every time it is reopened and discussed, it causes genuine harm.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thanks to the Minister especially for agreeing to meet the Kelly family and for coming to Derry to do so last week. I know that they appreciated that. Will the Minister tell the House how useful she found that meeting to be and how it might inform her actions going forward?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, as the Member is aware, having spoken to the family, I found it really useful to understand, for example, the trauma that has been caused, particularly to Mr Kelly's youngest children, who were not aware of the circumstances of his death. That has had to be explained to them; an appalling thing for any parent to have to do for their child. It has also reawakened a lot of anger and hurt in family members, who have lived with online provocation ever since the murder occurred. That has been incredibly traumatic for them.

It was important for me to hear that, and it has influenced how we intend to take forward work. First, I warned the family in advance that questions would be asked today and that the matter might therefore appear in the press again. I also said that, before I announce to the Assembly the arrangements for the review, I will notify family members so that they are aware that I am going to do that. I have also made arrangements for the terms of reference to include contact with not only the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime but the Kelly family, because their input is vital in this case. Finally, before any of the review's recommendations are reported to the House, I will meet the Kelly family again and inform them of its outcome. That is the very least that we should do.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

2. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Justice for an assessment of the impact of current PSNI officer numbers on neighbourhood policing. (AQO 3979/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The resourcing and deployment of neighbourhood policing teams are operational matters for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am committed to respecting that operational independence and the role of the board in holding him to account. The Member may therefore wish to direct her question to the PSNI.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I expected that response. I am sure that the Minister will agree that neighbourhood policing is vital and that it provides a reassuring presence in all our communities in Northern Ireland. Given the fact that numbers are less than optimal, does the Minister believe that if Sinn Féin, the SDLP and others were to continue to break the law and encourage others to do so by calling people on to the streets in Portadown, that would have a significant impact on neighbourhood policing —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

A question, Ms Brownlee.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

— and other ordinary policing —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Question.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

— in Northern Ireland?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, you may choose to answer that in any way in which you like.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will answer it openly and honestly. Yes, that would have an impact on policing. When such things occur, and there is the potential for disorder on the streets or conflict, the police are put in the invidious position of having to hold the thin green line between violence and peace. Their first priority is always to protect life. The fact that we have fewer police than we would wish to have necessarily means that they are abstracted from other duties. Those duties may be delivering neighbourhood policing, investigating domestic abuse or dealing with the consequences of child sexual abuse and other matters. Police would therefore be drawn away from a lot of other duties in order to police situations in which there was the potential for unrest.

It is a matter for the Chief Constable to decide on, but I am aware that, in line with the business case, which was approved by the Executive and for which we are now desperately seeking to get funding, given that we are not in a good position with the Budget, he has also done work internally. Unfortunately, neighbourhood policing and the organisation as a whole became out of shape because of retirements in different parts of the organisation. The Chief Constable has worked very diligently to try to address that issue in order to ensure that we can better protect our neighbourhood officers and give them a more stable career path in neighbourhood policing, while recognising the fact that, unfortunately, any kind of disruption, public disturbance or risk to life will always be the PSNI's first port of call.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Minister, further to your previous answer, will you provide more information about the PSNI workforce recovery plan business case?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

My strategic priority is to support the recovery and stabilisation of the workforce by enabling the PSNI to recruit, retain and develop high-quality officers, while protecting morale, well-being and operational resilience. Indeed, last week, at an event organised by the PSNI about dealing with misogyny, sexism and chauvinism in our society, I was photographed with one of the boards that will be used as part of the next recruitment exercise.

The earmarked allocations for PSNI workforce recovery in the draft Budget, which is, of course, not in place, demonstrate the importance that the Executive have placed on investing in policing and on recognising the critical role that the service plays, but we need Executive approval for that funding. It should be noted, however, that the funding for workforce recovery is of limited value in the absence of sufficient funding for the PSNI to pay for its existing staff complement and running costs. I will continue to engage with Executive colleagues to advocate additional funding for policing and the rest of the justice system, because we need to have a justice sector that is funded appropriately now and in future years. The rule of law and a culture of lawfulness matter.

It rests on all of us to prioritise it when it comes to the Budget.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, have you carried out an assessment of the additional policing costs associated with the loyalist racist disorder in the summer?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Again, it is not for me to carry out that assessment, but I can say that it required mutual aid. That mutual aid has had to be called on again in respect of the threat of disorder in Garvaghy Road. As a result, we will face bills. I can say with confidence that, last year, disorder of that nature cost us £5 million. I would rather see that £5 million invested in new officers, new prison cells, probation services and any of the multiplicity of public services that we have that are hanging by a thread. The bill will ultimately come to the Chief Constable and to me. I have made it clear to the Secretary of State that I expect the cost of that to be met. It should not eat into the current police budget.

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

I have a listed question, but we are unlikely to get to it. It relates to neighbourhood policing and associated statutory work including by the probation service in inner South Belfast, around Botanic Avenue and the Holylands, where there are vulnerable communities, antisocial behaviour and people with addiction problems. That poses real problems for the people who live in that area and for local traders —.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Question, Matthew.

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

What work is the Minister's Department doing to address those issues in inner South Belfast?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The issues to which the Member refers do not all lie with the Department of Justice. Issues such as addiction services are the responsibility not of the Department of Justice but of the Department of Health. Many of those issues are to do with accommodation, housing and social ills that we are dealing with. We take antisocial behaviour and the toll that it takes on neighbouring communities seriously. I am happy to meet the Member to discuss further any interventions that may be possible.

I am aware that the policing and community safety partnership (PCSP) receives funding from the PSNI and the Department and ought, as part of its annual plan, to prioritise areas where there are particular sensitivities and complexities. I hope that the Member will ask his colleagues in Belfast City Council how the PCSP splits up that money and invests it in areas that need additional support. I have recently had meetings with elected representatives who, with different lenses, have come to me because they are concerned about the degree to which people in communities feel vulnerable to antisocial behaviour. Fundamentally, however, going back to the core of the matter, without strong neighbourhood policing and strong cooperation between communities and the police, it is incredibly difficult to manage all of that.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. Mr Robinson asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the consultation on the future of Limavady courthouse. (AQO 3980/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service has recently completed a public consultation on a proposal for the permanent closure and disposal of Limavady courthouse. The consultation paper and associated impact assessment documents are available on the departmental website. Thirty responses were received during the consultation process, which ran for 12 weeks from 29 May 2026 to 21 August 2026. Following the conclusion of the consultation process and consideration of the responses, I intend to announce a decision on the way forward in the coming weeks. A summary report on the consultation responses will be published alongside that announcement.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for that response. Will she assure me that Limavady courthouse will not be allowed to fall into a poor state of repair while the future of the facility is resolved?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Member raises probably the key point in all of it. All Members are aware of the adequacy of our courts estate. Many of the buildings are listed buildings and historic buildings. Many of them are beautiful buildings, but they are not fit for current court business or for organising court business in the way that we would wish. It is really important that we look at that to see how we can do things better.

It is important to me that we do not allow heritage buildings, listed buildings and buildings of quality to fall into disrepair. I do not have the money in my budget to do anything other than basic maintenance in Limavady courthouse at the moment. However, if I were to make a decision that would lead to its closure, I would want to think about what that building could be used for. I suggest to the Member that it would be worth visiting the Court House in Bangor, which was taken on by Open House. It received significant lottery funding and has become a real asset at the seafront in Bangor. It is widely used by arts organisations and for many other purposes and has become a new community hub. It is also in absolutely pristine condition.

There are opportunities for a part of East Londonderry that, perhaps, often feels overlooked to benefit from the building and put it to better use than being used for, perhaps, at best, half a day of court business each week. I want to discuss that with elected representatives in the area as part of the overall discussions.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I appreciate the update from the Minister on the consultation and a decision in the coming weeks. Minister, how can you ensure that access to justice is protected in any future reforms, particularly in progressing the grade A listed building at Bishop Street courthouse in Derry?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The intention, as part of the overall review, was to significantly refurbish and extend Bishop Street courthouse, which would allow us to provide modern facilities, such as the space to separate witnesses and defendants, on-site without losing the asset. That is still possible, but my challenge is that there is no capital funding available for that project at this time. In the interim, we continue to do essential maintenance to ensure that the building is kept in good repair for the sake of those who work in it and because it is a pristine piece of architecture. It is an impressive building in a historic location. It is important that our heritage is protected and cared for.

The plans that we have and are developing are not about anything other than ensuring access to justice. There will be many scenarios that we will have to work through for each of the courthouses. I do not want to prejudge any of them — I have not taken a firm decision on any of them at this point — but, on the basis of the plans that I have seen, there is a real opportunity to reinvigorate and bring life back to Bishop Street courthouse in a way that allows it to conduct the modern business of the court service.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Minister, I have seen in my constituency the huge success of the Court House in Bangor, following a community asset transfer from your Department. Could other areas, such as Limavady, have the same opportunities for arts and culture hubs or other community assets in their towns as Bangor has had?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Absolutely. I mentioned that one because it was the first community asset transfer that the Executive managed to do. Oddly, it was from Justice, which is not always recognised as contributing something so iconic to the community.

The adequacy of our estate is a challenge, but that does not mean that those buildings are inadequate or that they should not be retained or preserved. I want to see those buildings having a permanent use. That may be community arts. It may be the provision of other services from other parts of the Executive that do not have a base in those locations or are renting property in them and could save money by co-locating in one of our buildings. Those are the creative ideas that I am looking for when it comes to the estate. The first priority for me is access to justice, but it is fair to say that my second priority is to ensure that the buildings that we find to be superfluous or not fit for purpose at the end of the process are not simply lost to the public, because that would be a shame.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

4. Ms Mulholland asked the Minister of Justice to outline how her Department uses trauma-informed practice. (AQO 3981/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

As lead Minister for the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, which has invested over £1·5 million to support the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland in embedding trauma-informed practice across sectors, I fully support the adoption of trauma-informed approaches in my Department and across all of our public services.

The Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland works with Justice partners to ensure that our services recognise the impact of trauma and are delivered in ways that support better outcomes for individuals and communities. The establishment of a Justice-wide trauma-informed practice group in 2021, supported by the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland, has provided a platform to share information, advice and best practice, as well as driving a consistent approach to trauma-informed practice across all Justice organisations. The group also considers the impact on and support for staff working in the Justice system, given that their roles mean that they are frequently exposed to vicarious trauma. As a result, organisations have increased awareness and understanding of the impact and signs of trauma and bring that knowledge to their daily interactions, policies and procedures to actively reduce re-traumatisation and explore pathways to recovery.

Each justice organisation is at a different stage in its trauma-informed journey. Some, such as the Probation Board and the Youth Justice Agency, are more advanced and have participated in the internationally recognised Oregon tool assessment to evaluate their alignment with trauma-informed care and to monitor their progress. Others may be only at the start of that work, but there is a common vision of a trauma-informed justice system based on the lived experience of those who engage with it.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. Can you give us a little more information about how the Youth Justice Agency uses trauma-informed practice in its work?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

A Justice-wide group has been running since June 2021 to support a more strategic approach to trauma-informed practice across the justice system. Included on that group is representation from the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency, the police, the Prison Service, the core Department, the Safeguarding Board and Victim Support NI. Each of those organisations is committed to implementing a trauma-informed approach to their policies and services. The Safeguarding Board is driving trauma-informed practice in all sectors across Northern Ireland, and its representation on the group ensures that Justice organisations are kept abreast of the latest initiatives and training opportunities as well as of what support is available. In addition to the cross-pollination of ideas and best practice that happens among group members at meetings, outside of this group members share information on seminars, training and research that might be helpful to others. Key to that is the experience in the Justice sphere, where the Youth Justice Agency can firmly say that it, alongside the Probation Board, has led the way on trauma-informed practice and putting victims at the heart of the work that they do.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Does the Minister agree that implementing trauma-informed practices is important in reducing reoffending and has to be embedded at an early point and not applied inconsistently? Does that mean that there should be investment in earlier trauma-informed approaches?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Without doubt, it is important that we invest earlier. We know from the research conducted by the tackling paramilitarism and organised crime programme that numbers of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) are higher in Northern Ireland than in other regions and that they have significant consequences for the life outcomes of young people. Young people with high ACE scores are more likely to engage negatively with the justice system, to have poor mental health, to suffer from addictions and to not be economically active or have secure accommodation. We have to consider all those things when responding to those adverse childhood experiences, because the bit of that research that gets missed is that an adverse childhood experience does not, in itself, set a child on that path. If they have positive experiences that counterbalance and offset that and if they get the right support at the right time, many of those children will go on to lead productive and constructive lives. It is therefore in all our interests to find ways to invest much earlier in our young people who have suffered trauma.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Is there an assessment of the extent of vicarious trauma in the Department and its arm's-length bodies?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

That is an interesting question, and I thank the former Health Minister for asking it, because I know that vicarious trauma has also affected his former Department. I do not think that a baseline assessment of staff has been conducted, but it is something that we are aware of and that we may well come to in time. At the moment, we are providing people with the opportunity for additional and, perhaps, more targeted counselling. Some of the stories that we hear when we meet victims are incredibly difficult to listen to. The Member will know that, because he has been at some of those meetings alongside me. We do not simply clock out at the end of the day and forget what we have heard; we carry it with us. One way in which I deal with what I hear is to try to find something that I can do to make it better for people coming through the system. We have to find ways of managing that, such as offering our staff, particularly those in the operational sphere but also those who work in policy development and engage with experts in lived experience, the support to cope with what they may hear.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr McGrath. Can you do it in 30 seconds?

Colin McGrath (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

5. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Justice to outline any action her Department is taking to reduce case-processing times for children and young people in the youth justice system. (AQO 3982/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Reducing avoidable delay in the justice system remains a priority for my Department and Justice partners, particularly where cases involve children and young people. Timely progression supports rehabilitation for young people who offend and helps to minimise uncertainty and further trauma for child victims and witnesses. My Department is taking forward the speeding up justice programme with Justice partners.

That programme is focused on tackling avoidable delay at a system-wide level, reducing demand on the courts and supporting proportionate and effective responses to offending. It includes work on out-of-court disposals, committal reform, early engagement, the remit of the Magistrates' Court and digital reform. I will continue to work with justice partners to address avoidable delay while ensuring that the youth justice system remains proportionate, effective and focused on rehabilitation and the needs of children and young people locally.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. You were only 10 seconds over; well done. That ends the period for listed questions. We move now to 15 minutes of topical questions.

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

T1. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Justice to elaborate on the costs associated with policing the attempt by the Orange Order to resume parading down the Garvaghy Road and to clarify whether the details that she has already provided include costs for the 200 police officers who were brought in to support the occasion. (AQT 2621/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

To be clear, I did not attribute blame to anyone for the fact that we needed additional feet on the ground on the Garvaghy Road. The truth is that police were there and needed mutual aid and assistance simply because there was a potential threat to order and life. They had no choice but to call on that additional resource. The figure of £5 million that I gave is the figure from the summer before last summer. I will have the mutual aid figures for this event in due course. However, it has to be said that it is a diversion of resources and local police from what they could and should be doing in communities across Northern Ireland. That is one of the reasons why I again implore those with influence in the community to try to bring the situation to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

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

Thank you for that, Minister. Will you elaborate on what additional resources and policing that £5 million could have gone towards in your Department, where there are already cutbacks, rather than being diverted to deal with the implications of the Orange Order's attempted parade down the Garvaghy Road?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Five million pounds is what it is. People are aware of the implications that that will have on a justice system that is looking down the barrel of an overspend of over £100 million this year, just to stand still. Without wishing to advertise a particular supermarket, "Every little helps". That £5 million could be better spent elsewhere. It is also fair to say that we have to make sure that people are safe. We have no choice in this. The PSNI cannot decide that its budget has run out so it will not attend; it cannot decide that it does not have enough resources and absent itself from the situation. It has to turn up and do the job.

I will give the Member an example. The difference between my being able to approve last year's PSNI pay award and not being able to approve it was around £5 million. We were finally able to receive that from the Executive, and it allowed me, albeit belatedly, to sign off on the pay award. The gap this year is much greater, but, having watched the restraint with which the PSNI conducted itself over the weekend and the dignity with which it held itself in such a difficult situation, I am sure that everyone in the House will agree that that money would be better spent on ensuring that its officers are properly and adequately paid.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

T2. Mr T Buchanan asked the Minister of Justice to clarify whether the First Minister was in breach of her ministerial code and the rule of law and order when she took part in the illegal protest blocking the Garvaghy Road at the weekend. (AQT 2622/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There is a tendency to try to misrepresent what I say. I wondered how long it would be before all of this was the Alliance Party's fault. It has not taken long.

First and foremost, it is not my role in the House to adjudicate on whether Ministers are in breach of the ministerial code. There are authorities that are responsible for that, and I encourage the Member to approach those authorities to get a read-out on that. Neither is it my job as Justice Minister to adjudicate on whether people are breaking the law. That said, I have been clear that the law must apply equally to everyone and that people have a legal, moral and leadership duty to abide by the rule of law. That does not come as a pick-and-mix. It does not apply only when you like it; it applies when you do not. I said clearly at the weekend that standing on a road may well have been peaceful, but it was not lawful. I said the same thing when it was people standing on roads over the head of the Windsor framework, when people were blocking access to Avoniel Leisure Centre over a bonfire, and when people were behaving in other ways that were provocative or in breach of the law. Therefore, I am not the one who needs to account for my consistency when it comes to the rule of law. There are many others in the House who seem to think that the rule of law applies only to others and not to their supporters. I take the view that it is never acceptable to break the law, and I do not think that anybody would be surprised that, as Justice Minister, that would be my position.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

It is good to get the Minister to put that on the record — I thank her for doing that — because sometimes it is difficult to get that done. Does she have plans for discussions with the Chief Constable with regard to that serious breach of the law?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First and foremost, it has not been difficult for me to put it on the record. I put it on the record before what happened at Drumcree. I put it on the record in the immediate aftermath, twice in front of cameras yesterday and again in the Chamber today, so if the Member has not heard it, it is not because I have not said it.

Secondly, it is not my role — I will be absolutely clear about this — to try to influence the operational decisions of the PSNI. The police have indicated that they are carrying out investigations of any offences that may have been committed on Saturday and Sunday. That is their view, and they have set that out. I will not try to influence them in either direction; nor will I be appealing to the Public Prosecution Service to take any specific action; nor will I be leaning into the Lady Chief Justice to demand that she does anything or influences her judges. That would be political interference in the independent and lawful discharge of their duties.

If you believe in the rule of law, you do not ask me to interfere in operational matters. That is the rule of law and the culture of lawfulness that we have to instil; so, no, I will not interfere. What I have done and will do is contact the Chief Constable to talk to him about what resources he might need if it continues and about the state and morale of his officers, because that is an appropriate intervention for me to make when those people are putting themselves in the middle of an intractable situation. All of us in the Chamber have a responsibility to now row everyone back from the brink and allow those officers to get back to the work that they should be doing.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

T3. Mr Burrows asked the Minister of Justice why smoking in prisons by inmates, which has been banned in Great Britain since 2018, was not banned here. (AQT 2623/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are a number of reasons. We have been looking at and working on that for some time. It is certainly my desire that we would be in a position to be able to end smoking in prisons. We are working at the moment with the health service and the Public Health Agency (PHA) on a proof of concept around allowing people to vape. It is already illegal for people to smoke on landings and in indoor spaces, but it is legal for them to smoke in outdoor spaces and in their cells. The advice at the time, I guess, was that that was proportionate given that their cells are effectively their dwelling. I recognise, however, that prison officers have to go into those cells on occasion and that the smoke is not necessarily always contained within the cell. That that continues causes me concern regarding the health and well-being of prison officers, which is why we have undertaken that proof of concept and are testing it to see whether that will help.

We have concerns about vaping in a prison context, as does the PHA. As a means of getting people to desist from smoking, vaping is helpful on occasion. However, we have also stepped up the work that we are doing on smoking desistance, and we offer people, if they wish, the opportunity to give up smoking with the proper medical support and advice.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

That answer is really not acceptable. For nearly a decade, prison officers in this country have had to breathe in the second-hand smoke of prisoners because we do not have the backbone to ban smoking in cells and put prison officers' lungs ahead of the prisoners. That is wrong. What is the excuse for that, Minister?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

If my first answer was unacceptable, that will come as a surprise to no one, because nothing ever seems to be acceptable to Mr Burrows. It also appears that, despite what he says, Mr Burrows has no concept of working in a prison environment. Prisons are often volatile and challenging places in which a whole mix of conditions are managed. How some people's reliance on smoking — that particular addiction — is managed can be critical to maintaining the safety and stability of our prisons.

We need to proceed with caution, not undue haste. I have initiated the work. I cannot speak to what happened 10 years ago — I was not here — but I can speak to the here and now. I hope that the proof of concept and the work that we are investing in to offer prisoners cessation support will be helpful.

I would prefer there to be no smoking. In fact, as a city councillor, I was one of the first politicians in Northern Ireland to support a smoke-free environment. I was berated by some of the Member's now colleagues for being unrealistic for thinking that that should apply to people in bin lorries as well as to people in offices.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

T4. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Justice, after noting that, having been proud to stand with the residents of Garvaghy Road at the weekend, he did not think that the Minister's insulting comparison of their protest to far right protests was fair or accurate, whether it would be a good use of court time for thousands of people attending a peaceful protest to be dragged before the courts. (AQT 2624/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First and foremost, I made no comparison between race riots and what happened on the Garvaghy Road. The Member needs to take that back. What I said was that there were comparable costs from mutual aid. That is what I said. I did not compare the two scenarios, and I do not appreciate the Member's trying to misrepresent my position. I have already said today that I am concerned about what is happening not just on Garvaghy Road but across Portadown and about the fear, tension and trauma that is being reawakened in people. I have been clear about that.

I have also said that the police must police to protect life. That means that a cost will be attached. It is not for me to determine whether bringing people before the courts is a good use of police and court time. Members may try, in the next six months, to invite me to overstep my boundaries and direct the Public Prosecution Service, the Police Service or the courts in what they should do, but I will not do it. I fundamentally believe in a culture of lawfulness that applies in this House to me as much as it does to any demonstration or public assembly anywhere else. I will not be drawn to cross that line.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you, Minister. I heard you — if you did not say it, I will take it back — compare a legal protest about racism to the Garvaghy Road. If you did not make that comparison —.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I did not.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

OK. I will withdraw it. That is what I would have said if you had let me finish.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Minister, is it important to defend the principle of the right to peaceful protest, including that of people on the Garvaghy Road, given what may happen in the coming days and weeks? Is that an important principle to defend?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, I appreciate the Member's withdrawing his comment, because the only link between the two was the cost of mutual aid. To be absolutely clear, that was the only link. I was asked a question about cost, and my answer was about cost.

Peaceful assembly is an important human right, but "peaceful" assembly does not equate to "lawful" assembly. Lawful assembly in this place is governed by a separate set of rules that were designed so that the police would not continually be piggy in the middle between groups of people who wanted to protest and exercise their right to do so without having any regard to their responsibilities to wider society. That is the genesis of the Parades Commission. That law must be upheld and respected. Yes, people have a right to protest lawfully and peacefully, but I will not switch course and change my opinions. I said it to unionists when they defended illegal protests on the basis that they were peaceful, and I say it now to nationalists who are defending illegal protests on the basis that they are peaceful. It is not the same to be peaceful as it is to be lawful. It is better than being violent, but it is not the same.