Northern Ireland Assembly, 5 October 2026

355 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Before we go to Members' statements, I will make some points. I have written to a number of Members individually in relation to exchanges that have taken place in the Chamber in recent weeks, but I want to ensure that all Members take note of the points.

I fully appreciate that we are in a political context where it might be inevitable that exchanges are more heated than normal and the Chair will often have to make judgements as to when it is beneficial to allow tensions to be aired rather than to build up. However, I ask Members to note my call last week to use the ability to make important points with some restraint and without deliberately seeking to inflame tensions outside the Chamber. There have been and will be opportunities to discuss the issues at hand, but I remind Members that they should focus on the issues rather than personal attacks.

I have written to a number of individuals about the use of some terms over the past couple of weeks by Members when referring to other Members, such as "bigots", "banshee", "plonkers" and "dopey". In other circumstances, the Chair might consider that some of those instances were intended to be light-hearted, but that is not the context that we are in. The long-standing rules and conventions of the Assembly are clear that Members should refer to one another and their parties by their proper names. All Members should know that remarks should be made through the Chair — you have been told often enough — and, over the past few weeks, Members have increasingly been directly and strongly addressing one another as "you". In the Assembly, "you" is the Chair: that is me, not the Member to whom you are referring. I ask Members to be mindful of standards of courtesy, good temper, moderation and respect.

Finally, I remind Members that it is not in order to refer to those in attendance in the Public Gallery. I acknowledge that, in most instances, Members do so with entirely positive intentions in order to be courteous and that all Members welcome those present, but there may be circumstances when all Members are not in agreement with the opinions of those in the Gallery and when references to those in the Gallery may not be positive. That might encourage noise from the Gallery, which is not permissible. I am therefore telling Members that they should not refer to or interact with those in the Gallery. This is a debating Chamber and is where the debate should remain.

Members' Statements

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I place on the record of the Assembly the names of those who have died as a result of the demand by the few to march down the Garvaghy Road over the past 30 years to ensure that they are remembered: Michael McGoldrick, a young father and taxi driver, murdered as a birthday present for LVF leader Billy Wright; Dermot McShane; Darren Murray, a 12-year-old boy knocked down after being chased by young loyalists; Robert Hamill, whose name has been heard before in the Chamber, kicked to death in Portadown town centre; Sean Brown, a GAA leader murdered in Bellaghy, whose family continues to demand truth and justice; Gregory Taylor; Bernadette Martin, barely 18 years of age, shot dead in her bed beside her Protestant boyfriend; James Morgan, 16 years of age, snatched from the roadside, butchered and thrown into a cattle pit; Gerry Devlin; Seamus Dillon, shot at his place of work; Philip Allen and Damien Trainor, Catholic and Protestant friends shot dead in Poyntzpass; Adrian Lamph, from Garvaghy Road, shot dead at his council yard workplace; Ciaran Heffron; and Richard, Mark and Jason Quinn, children burned to death in their beds. At the time, there were those who tried to blacken their family's name by accusing them of being involved in drug dealing. More recently, a similar attempt has been made. Those children were murdered for no reason other than that their mother was a Catholic. There was Frank O’Reilly; Brian Service; Rosemary Nelson, the legal representative of the people of the Garvaghy Road, murdered when a booby trap bomb was placed under her car; and, finally, Elizabeth O'Neill, who was killed in her home by a blast bomb. What was her crime? She was a Protestant woman married to a Catholic.

All those names are part of the dreadful, awful history of the campaign to force a supremacist march through an area where it is not wanted. I appeal once again to those who have influence over the Orange Order and other sections of society to bring this to an end. The history of that march is awful, steeped in violence and murder, and inflicting it on the community again is wrong.

I will end with this: a young mother stopped me the other night —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

— and said that she woke on Friday morning in tears.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Diane Dodds.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Let us not have that repeated.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

A democratic society will function only when we obey simple rules, and that rule is that everyone is equal under the law and everyone is equally subject to the law. In the early hours of Sunday 27 September, Mr Justice Humphreys, in an emergency sitting at the High Court, ruled that the case against the Parades Commission determination from the Portadown district on a parade of 35 Orangemen walking in silence down the Garvaghy Road stood; in fact, his written judgement indicates that the case was unarguable. Since then, we have witnessed an intolerant mob blocking the Garvaghy Road and preventing the lawful determination of the courts.

The law-abiding people of Northern Ireland have witnessed the First Minister of Northern Ireland, led by the hand by the dissident republican Breandán Mac Cionnaith and Colin Duffy and directed by the Provos, who were visibly present in Portadown all week. She deliberately flouts the law that she has signed up to uphold. There were also the Finance Minister, the Principal Deputy Speaker of the House and members of the Policing Board. We have the incredibly farcical situation where a member of the Policing Board can ask about the breaking of the law that she herself did. It is absolutely farcical.

The Finance Minister read into the record the names of those who lost their lives. All lives are a terrible loss in a devastating conflict conducted by the IRA. This weekend, however, we saw a supposed carnival at which old men sang songs such as 'My Old Man's a Provo'. Let us remind ourselves what the Provos did: that cowardly bunch of criminals killed 339 members of the Orange Order in the course of an absolutely rampant criminal campaign of murder and destruction in Northern Ireland.

This weekend, we witnessed — it was directed by some of the Members opposite — pure sectarianism in its most visceral form in Northern Ireland. That is what the Portadown district and the residents in Corcrain, Edgarstown and in other parts of Portadown had to listen to all weekend. We have seen members of the legal profession threatened, some requiring police protection, and we have seen —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Time is up.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

— quite frankly, a weak response from the Chief Constable.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I raise the issue of the ongoing risk of service collapse in acute maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital. Since the Minister of Health made a statement two weeks ago, the situation has not improved.

Last week, I attended a public meeting organised by SOS Daisy Hill and UNISON. I estimate that approximately 1,000 people were present. This is about the expectant mothers, the babies, the fathers, the staff and their supporters, and that attendance shows the strength of feeling about what is a vital service not just for the people of Newry but for mothers, fathers and babies across my constituency of South Down and further afield.

I have been contacted by several constituents — mothers and fathers — who are in frank despair at the prospect of having to travel in active labour to Craigavon. The length of the journey and concern about the roads are the issues that they cite. Some are at high risk of serious complications due to previous deliveries, so time is of the essence. They are, understandably, incredibly anxious. It is particularly worrying for people in Annalong and Kilkeel, who face a long journey on difficult roads.

I again call on the Minister of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust to do everything in their power to ensure that a full range of maternity services remains available at Daisy Hill.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Today marks the 15th annual Science and Stormont event. I have a declaration of interest: I am proud, as chair of the all-party group on science, technology, engineering and mathematics, to co-host the event, with scientists from many of the royal societies, universities and research organisations exhibiting in the Dining Room and holding discussions in the Long Gallery this afternoon. Members are all welcome to attend.

This year's theme is the STEM economy and innovation. We are grateful to the Royal Society of Chemistry for facilitating the event and our all-party group. Among the speakers at the event will be the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser for Northern Ireland, Professor Helen McCarthy, and the chief scientific adviser to the Food Standards Agency, Professor Ian Young.

The event will show that chemistry alone contributes close to £1·5 million in gross value added (GVA) to the Northern Ireland economy, providing high-value, high-productivity jobs and creating GVA per worker of over £84,800. The economic contribution of the wider sector — physics to engineering; geology to mathematics — is immeasurable.

The revolution in life sciences, agribusiness, manufacturing technology, AI, aerospace and cyber will also be discussed by the distinguished scientists attending the event. They will talk in particular about how Northern Ireland leads the way in those areas, particularly in invention and innovation, with developments such as the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre (AMIC) Factory of the Future, which will open tomorrow in my constituency of South Antrim, turning academic research into commercial development. That is the epitome of what we should be doing as a country known for its technological skill and research. It is through our thorough understanding of STEM that we can become a true global leader in building an economy fit for the 21st century.

It is good to report the opening of the Horizon and ERASMUS partnerships, which, coupled with the highly successful Turing scheme, have enabled universities across our nation to be propelled to the top of the global university rankings. That approach means that, in conjunction with universities across these islands, Europe and the globe, research centres such as Catalyst and, in the near future, AMIC can access the best science to inspire our future STEM leaders.

Finally, on our 15th anniversary, I pay special tribute to one of Northern Ireland's great scientists, Dame Jocelyn Bell, the astrophysicist and radio astronomer, who, while conducting research for her doctorate in 1967, discovered the first pulsar. Dame Jocelyn is a great supporter of Science and Stormont and an exemplar for everyone in our scientific community and for all our students embarking on a STEM education.

On a day when hope seems to be in short supply, there is a lot of it available upstairs. Please, come and join us.

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

Tomorrow, the A5 case will be heard in the Court of Appeal. I will speak about that road project's importance not just in protecting human lives and ensuring the safety of our people who travel on that road daily but in unlocking significant economic opportunities for that part of the island.

To date, 57 people have lost their lives on the A5 road. There have been thousands of collisions since 2007, and hundreds have been seriously injured. People who live along the route of the A5 have been left in limbo in a state of uncertainty, and others too are very concerned about the future of the project. Of course, the Alternative A5 Alliance objection group has a lot to answer for, but that, mixed with the incompetence of the Department for Infrastructure, has led us to this place.

Tomorrow is a critical day for everyone. Today, it is important to remember all those who lost their lives on the road. They were going about their daily life, taking kids to school, travelling to work and back, and never made it home to their families: that is the story of the A5. Tomorrow, I am hopeful of a positive outcome, which will serve everybody's interests and put to bed a very long outstanding problem.

That said, if tomorrow does not go as the public would like it to go, serious questions need to be raised about the Department. The Sinn Féin Minister for Infrastructure needs to take a strong look and to hold a review of how the project has been mishandled by the Department over the past number of years and ended up in the state that it is in. Heads would roll if such gross incompetence played out in the private sector. Why, in this place and throughout our Civil Service, is there a serious and serial lack of accountability when it comes to decisions about capital projects and the significant cost not just to the public purse but, in the case of the A5, to human life?

We have no alternative way of travelling. The people whom I represent are forced to go on to that road numerous times a day. Unfortunately, far too often, the story is that many lives have been claimed as a result of that. Tomorrow is a critical and important day for my constituents and for people from right across Tyrone, Fermanagh, Derry and Donegal. It is time we got the project done, and it is time we ensure that the people of the west get what they are truly entitled to: good-quality infrastructure to put right that wrong.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

In October 2021, the High Court ruled that five DUP Ministers were acting unlawfully and in breach of their ministerial Pledge of Office. Mr Justice Scoffield said that the DUP Ministers' decision to withdraw from the North/South Ministerial Council was unlawful. He stated that their actions were "contrary to" and "in breach of" their legal duties. Each of the DUP Ministers had affirmed the ministerial Pledge of Office, which committed them to discharging all the duties of their ministerial office and to upholding the rule of law.

Who were the DUP Ministers guilty of acting unlawfully? They were the then First Minister, Paul Givan, the then Agriculture Minister, Edwin Poots, and Gordon Lyons, amongst others. What was the response from the DUP's sanctimonious, law-abiding paragons of virtue who now demand unconditional adherence to the law by others? Minister Givan continued to break the law in an abject breach of his solemn pledge. Minister Lyons, too, continued to break the law in an abject breach of his solemn pledge. Edwin Poots also continued to break the law in an abject breach of his solemn pledge. We heard Jonny Buckley on the airwaves this morning telling us that the law must always be abided by. Jonny may need to have a word with his Ministers, or perhaps that is the problem with the DUP: nobody knows who is calling the shots. They are all going on solo runs. I suppose that it all depends on what their leader Jamie Bryson — sorry, Gavin Robinson — says.

I say to the Benches opposite that we will not take a lecture on the rule of law from lawbreaker and hypocrite Gordon Lyons. We will not take a lecture on the rule of law from lawbreaker and hypocrite Paul Givan. We will continue to listen to the residents and community of the Garvaghy Road and continue to stand with them. We will continue to reject a sectarian, supremacist and triumphalist march down the Garvaghy Road. Let me be absolutely unequivocal: there is no going back, not now and not ever.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

It is time that the House heard some facts. The scenes on the Garvaghy Road over the past week have been a blatant and triumphalist attempt to ramp up tensions in my home town of Portadown. Sinn Féin's act of supremacy and harassment, whereby it recklessly brought thousands of activists on to the streets of Portadown to break the law, has deliberately stoked tensions, intimidation and fears for local residents who were going about their everyday business. Let me be categoric: it was those actions that closed schools last week and that have resulted in local residents living in fear. They are a blatant distraction from Sinn Féin's abject failure in government and its embarrassing stance on open borders. At every turn, its actions are designed to cover up and distract.

I have been deeply worried by the level of blatant sectarianism that we have heard. We were told that that had been consigned to the past, but the mask has well and truly slipped again. Sinn Féin president, Mary Lou McDonald's, once-proclaimed "unionist brothers and sisters" are now being referred to as "effers", "Bs" and the "Ku Klux Klan". Violent dissident republicans, pledged to the murder of police officers, have stood linked arm in arm with Sinn Féin and SDLP elected representatives, with everything from the wearing of balaclavas to the shouting of expletives. Contrast that with the Orange response, which has been lawful and dignified. There was a prayer vigil last night, at which people prayed for the residents of the Garvaghy Road. They prayed for Michelle O'Neill and Mary Lou McDonald. They prayed for peace and the rule of law. They prayed for the police and the judiciary.

One thing that cannot go unsaid is that the mythical, so-called new Ireland, in which Sinn Féin and the SDLP told us that unionist culture would be respected and unionist identity acknowledged, lies buried dead in Portadown, broken on the backs of 35 Orangemen, some of them 80 years of age, standing peacefully waiting to walk for 14 minutes in silence. In the fullness of —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— time, only Sinn Féin will be able to decide whether that price was worth it.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Alliance opposed reopening the wounds of the Drumcree dispute and warned the Parades Commission that doing so would resurrect pain and hurt from 28 years ago and rupture community relations. We spoke to residents in the Drumcree Community Centre over the past week and saw the trauma in people's eyes. It is clear that there has been an impact on community relations from the blatant sectarianism that has been broadcast over social media in recent days. We have called on everyone to express their views lawfully and peacefully whilst recognising that the courts cannot adjudicate on the basis of reconciliation. We each have agency and can choose to put reconciliation first. The Orange Order has established a legal right, but it is not a legal obligation. Even at this late stage, Portadown district can, and should, put the greater good of our entire community first and choose not to proceed.

I acknowledge that, for many people who live in the area, the legal process and their sense of justice feel deeply misaligned, but only dialogue and mediation can bridge that gap and address that divide. This is not simply an orange and green issue; people from across our community have expressed sympathy with the residents of the Garvaghy Road for the position in which they have found themselves, including through an open letter from a range of people with a Protestant background. The answer to a deliberate strategy of division and provocation cannot, however, be further polarisation, sectarianism or triumphalism. The taunting of victims in our society is always wrong and must be condemned. I ask those who have sought to exploit the situation and have engaged in such behaviour to reflect on the fact that they are undermining the position of those very residents. Residents must be allowed to return to some semblance of normality. Our priority should be to get the dispute off the streets and back into a political process that is focused on de-escalation, resolution and healing the deep wounds that have been opened in our community. Every day that the stand-off continues causes further damage to people in Northern Ireland. It simply must now be brought to an end.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Sometimes, the law is just wrong. It was wrong when it prevented women from voting. It was wrong when it criminalised homosexuality. Civil disobedience is a legitimate form of protest against bad law. Rosa Parks was right when she refused to go to the back of the bus. Muhammad Ali was right when he refused to be conscripted into the American army to fight against the Vietnamese. John Hume was right when he was arrested twice for civil disobedience.

I just want to read a quote from a book that was published recently:

"As Lord Sumption, former Justice of the UK Supreme Court, set out during the Covid lockdown ... civil disobedience does not represent a refusal to comply with the Rule of Law, but rather if one consciously refuses to obey what is felt to be an unjust law, then you do so, but accept the legal consequences which come from that."

Who wrote that? Was it a Shinner? Was it a republican? No. That quote is from a recently published book called 'Culture War', which was written by your good friend Mr Jamie Bryson.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Here, we have a member of Sinn Féin talking about Rosa Parks, Muhammad Ali, John Hume even and Lord Sumption, of all people, and expecting the House to believe that his party is in the same place, and in the same equation, as those people. We have heard some nonsense this week and continue to hear it today.

Accountability is really important. I hear Pat Sheehan across the way quote Lord Sumption, who became a hero of mine somewhat during the lockdown crisis and the disaster that it was. Of course, Sinn Féin went full tilt into depriving the people of Northern Ireland of their freedoms at that time. I stood, along with my party, to try to remove the worst excesses of that. We can stand tall in that regard, but Sinn Féin cannot, when, of course, its members went out in their thousands to a graveyard to have a sham oration for a man, who was not even buried in that graveyard, when other people could not bury their dead or organise a funeral for their loved ones, and people died alone without the comfort of their families around them. That is what Sinn Féin is.

Accountability is important, and, from the disgraceful scenes that they have witnessed this year, a whole raft of people in a new generation now see what Sinn Féin and, for that matter, the SDLP stand for. They stand for intolerance and hatred, and they stand against the rule of law. People of all ages — people my age, older people and younger people — now see that, if Sinn Féin ever were to get unbridled power in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in the Republic, the law would not be there to protect people. I suspect that people from the Republic of Ireland also see that.

Sinn Féin and the SDLP have wrapped up blocking a road and depriving 35 gentlemen of walking in silence at 8.00 am as some sort of victory, and people now see exactly what is meant by a "united Ireland" or a "new Ireland". Wrap it up whatever way you want, but the people of Northern Ireland and now the Republic of Ireland see exactly how ugly Sinn Féin really is.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

There are many issues that matter to us, and it is important that all are explored in the Chamber. I will take the opportunity to speak on Menopause Awareness Month, which takes place this month, October.

Last week, I met women involved in the Bring Her Back campaign to discuss their work to improve menopause and perimenopause care. Over 50% of our population are women and therefore 100% of the majority of our population will go through menopause. Many of those — not all, but many — will have at least some knowledge of what is to come, with symptoms such as brain fog, disrupted sleep and mental health impacts. However, too many women still struggle to access the care needed to deal with those impacts. There are still far too many stories of women reporting their symptoms to their GP and not being able to access HRT. I am aware of an example where one woman went to a male doctor and was told that it would perhaps be better if she spoke to a female doctor about her perimenopause symptoms. That is simply not acceptable.

We have early evidence that early access to HRT can delay women experiencing problems such as high cholesterol levels, blood pressure issues and issues with the heart, brain and bones. However, that is early evidence, and, due to a lack of funding dedicated to women's health issues, we do not have enough to back it up.

For too long, women's health has been deprioritised in Northern Ireland. We are two and a half years on from when we first committed to a Northern Ireland women's health action plan, which was meant to be a precursor to a women's health strategy, but who knows when that will come? The Bring Her Back campaign has brought forward a six-point action plan, and I encourage all Members to sign up to improve perimenopause and menopause care in Northern Ireland. I am delighted to support the work of that campaign. A particularly important aspect of the plan is to focus on solutions that have long-term impacts and will benefit over half of our population. Women can no longer wait. They do not need to wait until they are in perimenopause to know about the campaign, to educate themselves and, most important, to be listened to by healthcare providers. We need to ensure that we have a women's health action plan that focuses on perimenopause and menopause care.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Peter Martin. You have two minutes.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will do my best.

In an 'Irish Independent' poll over the weekend, people in the South were asked what the most important issues were to them. Do you know, Mr Speaker, what percentage of voters in the South consider a united Ireland or a new Ireland to be a priority? I am sure that the Members opposite will be interested in this. Is it 25% or 15%? It is less than 1%; in fact, it was a number so small that it did not register in the polling data. In April 2023, Sinn Féin was polling at 37% in the South: that number has halved. It campaigned to open borders and have unrestricted immigration, and voters in the South have reacted accordingly. As my colleague has just said, the new Ireland project is dead in the water. Up in Northern Ireland, we know that the self-styled "First Minister for all" is a First Minister for some. She is happy to stand with dissident

[Interruption]

— the Members opposite are laughing. She is happy to stand with dissident republicans on the Garvaghy Road to stop 35 Orangemen walking down it at 8.00 am. She is happy to stand on the Garvaghy Road while songs like, 'My Old Man's a Provo' are sung by the crowd.

What do those from a unionist or a loyalist tradition — loyalists and unionists who are angry and rightly so — do in that context? They never resort to violence; that is the absolute key. However, there is something that unionists and loyalists who have been annoyed by what we have seen on our streets can do: they can vote. Anyone watching or anyone who has got angry or frustrated at the scenes that we have seen over the last week can call into any of our offices and we will help them to get registered to vote. They can vote and then transfer to other unionist parties along the way —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

— maximising unionist representation. We will hold Sinn Féin to account. Do not get angry at the voices you hear on the —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

— radio. Go and do something about it.

Executive Committee Business

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That the draft Tobacco Retailer (Fixed Penalty) (Amount) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This morning, I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft regulations, which make important amendments to the Northern Ireland tobacco control enforcement framework as a consequence of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.

Members will be aware that smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death, disability and ill health in Northern Ireland. It is responsible for more than 2,000 deaths each year and over 25,000 smoking-attributed hospital admissions annually. In 2019-2020 alone, our hospitals spent an estimated £218 million treating smoking-related conditions. Alongside smoking, there is growing concern about vaping by children and young people. Recent research undertaken by the Public Health Agency found that 20% of young people in Northern Ireland aged between 11 and 18 have tried vaping, while 15% are current users.

The UK-wide Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which received the support of the Northern Ireland Assembly through a legislative consent motion in February 2025, was enacted on 29 April 2026. That landmark legislation represents a significant step forward in protecting public health, reducing smoking prevalence and safeguarding future generations from the harms associated with tobacco use and nicotine addiction. The Act introduces a range of significant measures, including making it an offence to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009; prohibiting the sale of non-nicotine vapes and nicotine products to persons under 18; strengthening enforcement powers; and extending the tobacco retailers register to retailers of vaping and nicotine products. The immediate priority is to support the implementation of the Tobacco and Vapes Act, including the development of secondary legislation required to ensure that those measures can operate effectively in practice.

The regulations before the Assembly are technical and consequential upon the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026. They do not introduce any new policy; rather, the regulations amend the existing fixed penalty notice framework to reflect the new and revised retail offences established in the Act in relation to the new products in scope, including herbal smoking products, non-nicotine vapes, nicotine pouches, nicotine strips and nicotine pearls. Specifically, the regulations revise the list of retail offences for which a fixed penalty notice may be issued and prescribe the corresponding penalty amounts. The regulations also revoke the Tobacco Retailer (Fixed Penalty) (Amount) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2021, as they will be superseded by the proposed statutory rule.

The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that the legislative and enforcement framework in Northern Ireland is fully aligned with the expanded regulatory framework for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products that was introduced via the same Act. The regulations will be commenced on a phased basis to align with the corresponding provisions in the Act. On 29 October 2026, provisions will commence relating to age of sale; proxy purchase of vaping and nicotine products; a vending machine ban; and free distribution restrictions. On 1 January 2027, tobacco age-of-sale-related provisions will come into force, and, on 1 March 2027, revised fixed penalty provisions relating to the extended registration requirements for retailers of vape and nicotine products will become enforceable.

My officials have engaged with the Department of Justice and other key stakeholders, including the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) and Belfast City Council, throughout the development of the regulations. There is broad support for the proposals. As part of the Assembly's enhanced scrutiny procedures for statutory rules (SRs), the Health Committee invited views on the proposed statutory rule, otherwise known as an "SL1", through the Citizen Space platform, which involves the publication of proposals for a statutory rule, including associated documents. The call for views provided stakeholders and individuals with information on the proposals for the statutory rule. No concerns or issues were raised as a result of the Committee's consultation. My officials briefed the Health Committee at its meeting on 18 June on the proposed regulations to outline the policy intent, and they responded to members' questions. I am pleased to confirm that the Committee raised no concerns about the content of the draft regulations. It is with the Health Committee's support, therefore, that I bring the statutory rule before the Assembly Chamber today.

The regulations are an important component of the implementation programme for the Tobacco and Vapes Act. They will provide clarity for retailers, enforcement authorities and consumers whilst ensuring that the new retail requirements can be enforced effectively in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend the motion to the Assembly.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to confirm that, as the Minister said, the Health Committee supports today's motion. As he set out, the regulations will amend the existing legislation so that the monetary fines payable align with the new and revised offences in the Tobacco and Vapes Act. In addition to the statutory rule, the Health Committee fully scrutinised the Tobacco and Vapes Act as a legislative consent motion in early 2025 and agreed to support its inclusion here. I particularly thank the Youth Assembly for its helpful input into the Committee's scrutiny at that time.

Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death and ill health in the North. Departmental evidence to the Committee clearly stated that over 2,000 deaths and 25,000 hospital admissions a year can be attributed to smoking. In that context, the provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 are to be welcomed. The impact that a reduction of 25,000 hospital admissions a year could have on our health service must not be underestimated. Members will be fully aware of the significant use of vapes and e-cigarettes among our young people. The Minister gave some Public Health Agency statistics on that. Another statistic is that almost half of year 14 pupils — 46% — confirmed that they are vape users. That stark statistic shows the scale of the challenge facing authorities in combating the use of vapes among those aged 18 and under. While the long-term side effects of vaping remain unclear, a clear picture is emerging from recent studies of its negative impacts on young people. A recent study by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health linked vaping among young people to an increased risk of respiratory problems; poor oral and dental hygiene; and sleep and mental health issues. Similar research has shown that teenagers who vape are three times more likely to move on to smoking cigarettes.

Further key aspects of the Tobacco and Vapes Act are the enhanced restrictions on the sale of vapes to under-18s, as well as controls on flavours, promotions and discounts; a ban on the use of vending machines for such products; and increased enforcement powers for local authorities in this area. Specifically, this technical SR will update the process for fines in relation to issuing a fixed penalty notice to any retailer who breaches the new regulations under the Act.

During the Committee's scrutiny, as the Health Minister outlined, it considered the SL1 policy for the SR in June and the SR itself in September, taking evidence from officials in addition to considering the written evidence that was provided. Under the new SL1 process for 2026, the Committee opened a call for views on the rule, allowing the public to submit information regarding any concerns about or unintended consequences of the policy proposal. No such responses were received, and the Committee agreed that it was content with the rule.

We raised a concern with officials about the fact that a formal public consultation with retailers had not been carried out, but officials assured us that that engagement had happened as part of the wider consultation process for the Tobacco and Vapes Act and that it had included Retail NI. Updated guidance documents have been written for use in the North as well as in England, Scotland and Wales, with input having been sought from local businesses on their development. When it comes to costs, the officials set out that the impact on retailers should be minimal. It is natural that retailers may need to train staff on any new rules, but that would not represent any ongoing financial outlay.

The statutory rule will help to ensure that the enforcement of new rules under the Tobacco and Vapes Act is effective and proportionate. In line with that, the Committee also sought to confirm with officials that they were content that councils had the resources necessary to do that. Twelve tobacco control officers work across our councils, and that is currently funded by the Public Health Agency. The Department gave assurances that the officers are fully briefed on the new rules and in a position to enforce them.

The Health Committee looks forward to the implementation of the regulations, as we see the wider implementation of the Tobacco and Vapes Act as providing crucial benefits for public health and the well-being of those across society, particularly young people. The Health Committee is committed to working in cooperation with the Department and the Minister on that important policy area.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

The statutory rule is relatively technical, but it is an important part of ensuring that the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 can operate effectively in Northern Ireland. The regulations update the existing fixed penalty framework so that the offences and penalties that are applicable to tobacco, vaping and nicotine products align with the new legislation, and they revoke the previous 2021 regulations, which have now been superseded. It is important to emphasise that the statutory rule in itself does not introduce a new policy; rather, it provides the enforcement mechanism that is necessary to support measures that were already established through the Tobacco and Vapes Act.

From 29 October, fixed penalty notices will apply to a range of offences, including the sale of vaping and nicotine products to under-18s. Further provisions will come into effect from January and March next year, including the new tobacco age of sale provisions and expanded retail registration requirements. As the Chair of the Health Committee said, the Committee considered those regulations at SL1 stage in June and September and agreed that it was content with the proposal. The Department has also confirmed that the changes are technical and consequential, with no additional cost implications for the Department. Ultimately, effective legislation requires an effective enforcement framework. The regulations provide that framework and ensure that Northern Ireland's fixed penalty arrangements will keep pace with the changes that are introduced by the 2026 Act. For those reasons, I am content to support the statutory rule.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

The Tobacco and Vapes Act was a major public health measure, and the regulations mark a significant step towards ending the harm caused by smoking and creating Northern Ireland's first ever smoke-free generation.

Tobacco kills up to half of its long-term users, which equates to around 7·5 million deaths a year globally. As mentioned by the Health Minister, it kills over 2,000 people in Northern Ireland every year. Globally, about 5·8 million deaths are the result of direct tobacco use, while around 1·7 million deaths are as a result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Smoking is the biggest preventable cause of cancer. It is responsible for around seven in 10 lung cancer cases, and it harms almost every organ in the body. In Northern Ireland, it is also a major cause of health inequalities, with lung cancer rates in our most deprived areas 2·5 times higher than those in our least deprived areas. According to the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Michael McBride, 15% of 11- to 18-year-olds in Northern Ireland currently vape, and the way that such products are displayed in shops, sometimes even alongside confectionery, is a major factor in the growth of youth vaping.

As a result of the regulations, retailers will understand their responsibilities and the law can be properly enforced. That, in turn, will help protect future generations from the harms of tobacco and nicotine addiction, thereby reducing the long-term pressure on our health service. We support the regulations.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call the Minister of Health to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the debate on the motion.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Before I address Members' comments, I will say that such regulations are an example of legislation that I like to see come forward for the Assembly to debate. In the many debates on health that we have had over the years, we have talked about how early identification and early intervention can lead to better outcomes, but there is nothing better than prevention. We have known for decades about the damage that smoking tobacco does. It causes respiratory diseases. Whether it is a young person, a pregnant woman, a man or an older person smoking, we know of the dangers and the outcomes, from lung cancer to COPD.

I see a crowd of young people in the Gallery. It takes me back to when I started secondary school in 1982 and how things have changed since then. Back then, I got a bus to school. When I got on the bus, the layer of smoke was down to my knees, because everybody on that blinking bus smoked. Danny Donnelly mentioned second-hand smoking. The regulations will therefore save not just smokers' lives but the lives of people who inhale second-hand smoke.

I thank the Members who spoke, in particular the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Health Committee. I will refer to a few of the points made. As I said in my opening remarks, smoking continues to have a profound impact on public health in Northern Ireland. Youth vaping, which just about every Member who spoke mentioned, is an increasing concern. I thank the Chair of the Health Committee for recollecting the input of the Youth Assembly, because it has an important role to play. It is important that young people speak to such matters, because some of the laws under which we are now making regulations will affect what they do and the choices that they have.

It is important that I respond on the record to a point that the Chair raised. When we make such regulations, it is always right for the Department to do checks and balances. The Chair made a good point about communicating with retailers to ensure that their voice is captured. The regulations are further to the public consultation that happened many years ago on the then Bill.

The regulations have teeth and are how enforcement will happen, about which I will inform the Assembly. Supporting retailers to help them understand and comply with the new requirements has been a key priority for my Department. I wanted to see where we were at with that. Departmental officials have met a number of retail organisations to brief them on the Tobacco and Vapes Act and its potential implications for retailers. In recent months, draft guidance for retailers has been shared with a range of key stakeholders, including representatives from the community and voluntary sector; retail organisations, including the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium, Retail NI and the Federation of Small Businesses; and councils. It is really important that we are not in an ivory tower up here but instead talk to councils' enforcement officers and to the retailers that will have to change their practices.

A recent review that the Institute of Public Health undertook of the health effects of vaping among children and adolescents found strong, high-quality evidence of an association between vaping and subsequent cigarette use, which supports the view that vaping acts as a gateway to tobacco use. The Tobacco and Vapes Act creates an important framework for addressing those challenges. Effective enforcement, however, is essential if the safeguards in the Act are to deliver their intended outcomes. I thank Alan Robinson for saying that there was no argument to be made against the regulations. He said that the Department had said that implementing them will have no cost implications, and he is absolutely right, but, in the long run, if we become a smoke-free society, we will see quantifiable savings in lives saved and in money that can be reused in the health service to treat other ailments. I thank the Member for bringing that up. By updating the existing fixed penalty framework, the regulations will support councils to carry out their enforcement responsibilities and help ensure that the legislation can be applied consistently across Northern Ireland.

Danny, I give you credit for using the "smoke-free generation" phrase. I wanted to get it into my speech, but you beat me to it. Hopefully, as we develop further legislation, by taking an evidence-based approach to what vaping does — I suspect that it is not good — we can encourage young people to ditch vapes as well.

These regulations represent a practical but necessary step in the successful implementation of the Tobacco and Vapes Act. Therefore, I commend the motion to the Assembly and ask Members to support the approval of the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Tobacco Retailer (Fixed Penalty) (Amount) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.

Committee Business

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I beg to move

Leave out Standing Order 42A and insert: “42A. Legislative Consent Motions (1) A legislative consent motion (‘consent motion’) is a motion which seeks the agreement of the Assembly to the Parliament of the United Kingdom (‘Parliament’) considering provisions of a Bill which deal with a devolution matter. (2) A legislative consent memorandum (‘consent memorandum’) shall be laid in respect of any devolution matter for which a consent motion is proposed. (3) A consent memorandum is a memorandum which includes— (a) a draft of the consent motion; (b) sufficient information to enable debate on the consent motion; (c) a note of those provisions of the Bill which deal with a devolution matter; and (d) an explanation of— (i) why those provisions should be made, and (ii) why they should be made in the Bill rather than by Act of the Assembly. (4) A consent memorandum may include the Bill and any explanatory notes attached to the Bill. (5) The Minister whom the devolution matter referred to in paragraph (1) concerns (‘the Minister’) shall, not later than 10 working days after the relevant day, lay a relevant memorandum before the Assembly. (6) A relevant memorandum is— (a) a consent memorandum; (b) a memorandum explaining why a consent motion is not sought; or (c) an indicative memorandum (see paragraph (15)). (7) The time period set out in paragraph (5) shall not apply where exceptional circumstances prevent the Minister from laying a relevant memorandum within that period. (8) If the Minister fails to lay a relevant memorandum for the reason set out in paragraph (7) the Minister shall as soon as is possible thereafter — (a) lay a relevant memorandum; and (b) at the same time, provide an explanation of the exceptional circumstances which prevented the Minister from laying that memorandum within the time period set out in paragraph (5). (9) Where the Minister has laid an indicative memorandum, the Minister shall as soon as is practicable thereafter— (a) lay a consent memorandum; or (b) lay a memorandum explaining why a consent motion is not sought. (10) A member of the Assembly other than the Minister may lay a consent memorandum but shall not do so unless— (a) the Minister has laid a memorandum explaining why a consent motion is not sought; (b) the Minister has laid an indicative memorandum, and a reasonable period has passed since that memorandum was laid; or (c) the period referred to in paragraph (5) has ended and no relevant memorandum has been laid by the Minister. (11) Upon a consent memorandum being laid before the Assembly, those provisions of the Bill dealing with a devolution matter shall stand referred to the appropriate statutory committee unless the Assembly shall order otherwise. (12) The appropriate statutory committee may, within 15 working days from the date of referral, or such greater period as may be agreed by the Assembly, consider those provisions of the Bill which deal with a devolution matter and report its opinion thereon to the Assembly. (13) A consent motion shall not normally be moved until at least— (a) 5 working days after publication of the appropriate statutory committee’s report; or (b) 5 working days after the end of any period referred to in paragraph (12). (14) A subsequent consent motion may be moved if appropriate, having regard to the nature of any amendment dealing with a devolution matter made, or proposed to be made, to the Bill. Paragraphs (5) to (13) shall not apply to that motion. (15) An indicative memorandum is a memorandum which— (a) indicates why the Minister has not laid a consent memorandum, or a memorandum explaining why a consent motion is not sought; (b) indicates when the Minister is likely to lay either such memorandum; (c) may include the Bill and any explanatory notes attached to the Bill; and (d) must include an explanation of the provisions of the Bill which deal with a devolution matter. (16) In this order— ‘devolution matter’ means— (a) a transferred matter, other than a transferred matter which is ancillary to other provisions (whether in the Bill or previously enacted) dealing with excepted or reserved matters; (b) a change to— (i) the legislative competence of the Assembly, (ii) the executive functions of any Minister, (iii) the functions of any department; ‘relevant day’ means— (a) in respect of a Bill other than a Private Member’s Bill— (i) the day the Bill is introduced in Parliament, or (ii) the day the Bill completes the stage in Parliament during which an amendment is made to the Bill which makes it a Bill to which this order applies; (b) in respect of a Bill which is a Private Member’s Bill, whichever is the later of— (i) the day the Bill completes the first stage at which it may be amended in the House of Parliament in which it was introduced, or (ii) the day the Bill completes the stage in Parliament during which an amendment is made to the Bill which makes it a Bill to which this order applies; (c) in respect of any Bill introduced in Parliament that, by virtue of amendments agreed to, or tabled by a Minister of the Crown or published with the name of a Minister of the Crown in support, in either House, makes (or would make) provisions of a Bill dealing with a devolution matter for the first time or beyond the limits of any consent previously given by the Assembly— (i) the day the amendments are agreed to by a Minister of the Crown, or (ii) the day the amendments are tabled by a Minister of the Crown or published with the name of a Minister of the Crown in support. (17) This order does not apply in respect of Bills introduced to Parliament which are consolidation Bills or statute law revision Bills.”.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am very pleased to bring the motion to the Assembly to amend Standing Order 42A, which sets out the procedural arrangements for managing legislative consent motions (LCMs) at the Assembly. The origin of the proposed changes to Standing Order 42A goes back to March 2022, when the Assembly endorsed the previous Committee on Procedures' report on its inquiry into legislative consent motions. Although that Committee considered that the fundamental reform of the principles underpinning the Assembly LCM procedures was unnecessary, it noted that there had been a number of instances where either the procedures had not been followed or they had been followed but issues had nonetheless arisen. It was therefore of the view that there was scope to make improvements to the practice and the arrangements for managing LCMs that would enhance the Assembly's ability to carry out its scrutiny and bring more transparency to the process. The report made seven recommendations, a number of which required changes to Standing Order 42A.

More recently, the Speaker expressed concerns at the start of the plenary sitting on 9 June 2025 relating to the issue of Assembly legislative consent, including that, on some occasions, Ministers were not engaging with the Assembly in a timely manner when seeking such consent. The Procedures Committee sought the views of the Speaker on whether the implementation of the changes to Standing Order 42A that were recommended by the previous Committee would assist in addressing the issues that he had raised, and he confirmed that, in his view, they were still relevant, and that he would welcome the proposed changes being brought forward.

The Committee also received correspondence from several Statutory Committees and the Chairpersons' Liaison Group, highlighting issues with the LCM process and requesting that consideration be given to what could be done to strengthen and enhance opportunities for Assembly and Committee scrutiny of LCMs.

I am sure that we all agree that it is always preferable that, wherever possible, legislation on devolved matters be made by the Assembly. However, there are some circumstances, such as in relation to maintaining parity, or where there is a need for simultaneous enactment across two or more jurisdictions, where the use of an LCM is appropriate. Given the issues that had been clearly identified with the current LCM procedures, the Committee on Procedures commenced work in February of this year on proposals to implement the recommendations in the previous Committee's inquiry report that required changes to Standing Order 42A. The Committee also considered a proposal from the Minister of Justice to change the definition of "relevant day" for an LCM arising as a result of an amendment to a Bill.

The outcome of that work is the motion before the Assembly today, which makes a number of changes to Standing Order 42A by implementing four of the previous Committee's inquiry recommendations and changing the definition of "relevant day". Some restructuring and renumbering of the paragraphs has taken place to ensure that the revised Standing Order remains coherent and workable, together with some minor changes to language to ensure consistency.

The first of the main changes being proposed removes the word "normally" from Standing Order 42A(4). The aim of the change is to encourage greater compliance by Ministers with the 10-working-day requirement for laying a legislative consent memorandum, or a memorandum explaining why a legislative consent motion is not sought, which is reflected in revised Standing Order 42A(5).

The change implements recommendation 1 of the inquiry's report, in which the previous Committee concluded that

"Executive Ministers must improve the timeliness of when they lay memoranda",

and saw

"no reason why in normal circumstances such memoranda should not be laid within 10 working days."

The next substantive change, reflected in paragraphs 6 and 15 of revised Standing Order 42A, implements recommendation 2 of the inquiry report and makes

"explicit provision for a Minster [sic] to lay a memorandum before the Assembly, normally within 10 working days, where a relevant Bill has been introduced to Parliament and where the Minister has not yet taken any decision on whether to ask the Assembly to give its consent."

The indicative memorandum should explain why the Minister has not laid a consent memorandum or a memorandum explaining why a consent motion is not being sought and is subject to the same 10-working-day period as those memoranda. If an indicative memorandum is laid, the Minister should, as soon as is practicable thereafter, lay either a legislative consent memorandum or explain why consent is not being sought. Providing for an indicative memorandum in Standing Order 42A will ensure that the Assembly remains informed of any Bills that require legislative consent even in circumstances where a Minister has not yet decided whether they intend to seek consent and removes any doubt on the part of Ministers that such an approach can and should be taken.

The previous Committee recognised that exceptional circumstances may prevent a Minister from laying a relevant memorandum within the period of 10 working days and recommended that provision should be made to cover such an eventuality. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of revised Standing Order 42A make provision that, in exceptional circumstances, Ministers may lay a relevant memorandum as soon as possible after the period of 10 working days has elapsed, with a requirement to explain the reason for the delay in laying the memorandum. A "relevant memorandum" is defined as a legislative consent memorandum, an indicative memorandum or a memorandum explaining why consent is not being sought.

In response to the challenges facing Committees regarding the timescales provided for in Standing Order 42A, the previous Committee recommended that the Standing Order:

"should be amended to allow for more flexibility ... (where this is possible) based on the planned timescale for the passage for the specific Bill through Parliament."

Paragraph 12 of revised Standing Order 42A makes provision for the appropriate Statutory Committee to bring a motion to the Assembly seeking the Assembly's approval to extend the period of 15 working days to report its opinion to the Assembly in line with the timetable for the Bill's passage through Westminster. It is not expected that that provision will need to be used extensively, particularly if Ministers adhere to the procedures, but it will enable a Committee to seek an extension to the time period when necessary and where circumstances allow. The timescales for moving a consent motion, which are set out in paragraph 13 of the revised Standing Order, have also been adjusted to cover circumstances in which the Assembly has agreed to an extension to the time period for the Committee to report its opinion.

The last substantive change is to the definition of "relevant day". Standing Order 42A currently provides that the relevant day is:

"the day the Bill completes the stage in the United Kingdom Parliament during which an amendment is made to the Bill".

That differs from the position in the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, where there are explicit provisions for the relevant day to be the day on which an amendment is:

"tabled by a Minister of the Crown or published with the name of a Minister of the Crown in support".

The approach taken in Scotland and Wales expressly recognises that, where an amendment is likely to be made by a UK Minister, there should be an opportunity at that point for the relevant Minister to bring the matter to the attention of the devolved legislatures. In its inquiry report, the previous Committee on Procedures suggested that:

"it would be sensible to consider making similar explicit provision when Standing Order 42A is amended"

but did not make a specific recommendation. The Minister of Justice subsequently wrote to the Committee to ask it to consider making the change. Paragraph 16 of revised Standing Order 42A expands the existing definition of "relevant day" to provide for the change and is consistent with the approach adopted by the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. As a result of that change, consideration of an amendment can take place earlier.

To enable it to determine whether Parliament should legislate on a devolved matter, the Assembly needs sufficient time and sufficient information to inform its decision. It is therefore important that the procedures that are in place to facilitate that are robust and effective. The motion tabled by the Committee on Procedures provides for revisions to Standing Order 42A that will support that aim and strengthen the ability of the Assembly to carry out its scrutiny role in relation to legislative consent.

On behalf of the Committee, a letter has been sent to all MLAs setting out the background to the proposed changes and providing information on what they cover. I hope that that is useful and will assist with today's debate.

In closing, in my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee, I thank the Deputy Chairperson and the members of the Committee for their constructive approach and detailed input to this issue and to the work of the Committee more generally. I also thank the Clerk's team and those who provided us with legal advice throughout the process. I hope that Members will support the changes to Standing Order 42A. I look forward to hearing anybody who wants to speak on the issue.

I will quickly talk in my capacity as an MLA. Alliance supports the change. It provides clarity for Ministers, meets the Speaker's requirements and will provide Statutory Committees with respect for their place and scrutiny.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Kellie. Órlaithí, there is no need for a winding-up speech as no other Members have indicated that they wish to speak on the issue. Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

Leave out Standing Order 42A and insert : “42A. Legislative Consent Motions (1) A legislative consent motion (‘consent motion’) is a motion which seeks the agreement of the Assembly to the Parliament of the United Kingdom (‘Parliament’) considering provisions of a Bill which deal with a devolution matter. (2) A legislative consent memorandum (‘consent memorandum’) shall be laid in respect of any devolution matter for which a consent motion is proposed. (3) A consent memorandum is a memorandum which includes— (a) a draft of the consent motion; (b) sufficient information to enable debate on the consent motion; (c) a note of those provisions of the Bill which deal with a devolution matter; and (d) an explanation of— (i) why those provisions should be made, and (ii) why they should be made in the Bill rather than by Act of the Assembly. (4) A consent memorandum may include the Bill and any explanatory notes attached to the Bill. (5) The Minister whom the devolution matter referred to in paragraph (1) concerns (‘the Minister’) shall, not later than 10 working days after the relevant day, lay a relevant memorandum before the Assembly. (6) A relevant memorandum is— (a) a consent memorandum; (b) a memorandum explaining why a consent motion is not sought; or (c) an indicative memorandum (see paragraph (15)). (7) The time period set out in paragraph (5) shall not apply where exceptional circumstances prevent the Minister from laying a relevant memorandum within that period. (8) If the Minister fails to lay a relevant memorandum for the reason set out in paragraph (7) the Minister shall as soon as is possible thereafter — (a) lay a relevant memorandum; and (b) at the same time, provide an explanation of the exceptional circumstances which prevented the Minister from laying that memorandum within the time period set out in paragraph (5). (9) Where the Minister has laid an indicative memorandum, the Minister shall as soon as is practicable thereafter— (a) lay a consent memorandum; or (b) lay a memorandum explaining why a consent motion is not sought. (10) A member of the Assembly other than the Minister may lay a consent memorandum but shall not do so unless— (a) the Minister has laid a memorandum explaining why a consent motion is not sought; (b) the Minister has laid an indicative memorandum, and a reasonable period has passed since that memorandum was laid; or (c) the period referred to in paragraph (5) has ended and no relevant memorandum has been laid by the Minister. (11) Upon a consent memorandum being laid before the Assembly, those provisions of the Bill dealing with a devolution matter shall stand referred to the appropriate statutory committee unless the Assembly shall order otherwise. (12) The appropriate statutory committee may, within 15 working days from the date of referral, or such greater period as may be agreed by the Assembly, consider those provisions of the Bill which deal with a devolution matter and report its opinion thereon to the Assembly. (13) A consent motion shall not normally be moved until at least— (a) 5 working days after publication of the appropriate statutory committee’s report; or (b) 5 working days after the end of any period referred to in paragraph (12). (14) A subsequent consent motion may be moved if appropriate, having regard to the nature of any amendment dealing with a devolution matter made, or proposed to be made, to the Bill. Paragraphs (5) to (13) shall not apply to that motion. (15) An indicative memorandum is a memorandum which— (a) indicates why the Minister has not laid a consent memorandum, or a memorandum explaining why a consent motion is not sought; (b) indicates when the Minister is likely to lay either such memorandum; (c) may include the Bill and any explanatory notes attached to the Bill; and (d) must include an explanation of the provisions of the Bill which deal with a devolution matter. (16) In this order— ‘devolution matter’ means— (a) a transferred matter, other than a transferred matter which is ancillary to other provisions (whether in the Bill or previously enacted) dealing with excepted or reserved matters; (b) a change to— (i) the legislative competence of the Assembly, (ii) the executive functions of any Minister, (iii) the functions of any department; ‘relevant day’ means— (a) in respect of a Bill other than a Private Member’s Bill— (i) the day the Bill is introduced in Parliament, or (ii) the day the Bill completes the stage in Parliament during which an amendment is made to the Bill which makes it a Bill to which this order applies; (b) in respect of a Bill which is a Private Member’s Bill, whichever is the later of— (i) the day the Bill completes the first stage at which it may be amended in the House of Parliament in which it was introduced, or (ii) the day the Bill completes the stage in Parliament during which an amendment is made to the Bill which makes it a Bill to which this order applies; (c) in respect of any Bill introduced in Parliament that, by virtue of amendments agreed to, or tabled by a Minister of the Crown or published with the name of a Minister of the Crown in support, in either House, makes (or would make) provisions of a Bill dealing with a devolution matter for the first time or beyond the limits of any consent previously given by the Assembly— (i) the day the amendments are agreed to by a Minister of the Crown, or (ii) the day the amendments are tabled by a Minister of the Crown or published with the name of a Minister of the Crown in support. (17) This order does not apply in respect of Bills introduced to Parliament which are consolidation Bills or statute law revision Bills.”.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

It is clear that there are Ayes from both sides of the House and cross-community support has been achieved.

Members, take your ease while we change the top Table before moving on to the next item of business

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

Private Members' Business

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the importance of promoting animal welfare and humane, reward-based training methods for domestic animals; agrees that aversive training tools, including shock collars, prong collars, choke chains and grot collars, can cause unnecessary pain, fear and distress and have the potential to contribute to longer-term behavioural problems; notes that the use of electronic shock collars on cats and dogs is prohibited in Wales and that the Scottish Government have issued guidance on the use of aversive dog-training aids; acknowledges calls from reward-based dog trainers, Dogs Trust and the USPCA for stronger restrictions on aversive training tools; welcomes the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs’ recent consultation on animal welfare reform, including proposals to ban specific aversive training devices, and looks forward to the Department publishing its response; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to bring forward legislation in the current Assembly mandate to prohibit the use and possession of aversive training tools for domestic animals, with appropriate exemptions for veterinary professionals, animal rescue organisations and dog wardens where necessary for safe handling or in emergency situations; and further calls on the Minister of Justice to work with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in considering appropriate penalties and ensuring that any resulting enforcement measures are adequately resourced.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

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

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will keep this relatively brief. It is an important issue, but it does not have to be controversial; in fact, it should unite us all. We are a nation of animal lovers; in particular, I am a dog lover. Everyone knows that I have my three dogs at home: Maggie, Cassie and Nancy. A test of the morality of a society is how it treats the voiceless and vulnerable. We have moral choices in front of us: whether an animal should be treated treated humanely or inhumanely and whether we should go for training or pain as a way of dealing with a behavioural issue. I commend the motion to everyone in the House.

The aversive training tools that are out there are simply literally shocking. That a dog in this country can be legally subjected to electric shocks through a collar is obscene. I am told that, even on the Stormont estate, there are dog trainers who use electric shock collars on their dogs. That is inhumane and not only is morally wrong but relies on a theory of dog or animal training that is based on pain and compliance as opposed to teaching and reward. That is fundamentally wrong.

I will read out some of the tools available in Northern Ireland that can be used legally. A grot collar puts pressure on the bone behind a dog's ear, causing significant pain. A shock collar delivers an electric shock to a dog's neck remotely or automatically, creating pain, fear, anxiety and discomfort. There are prong collars, and I have some in my desk upstairs. We are not allowed to bring props into the Chamber. I will not do a Gerry Carroll and bring a prop in, but it would have been useful to see one today. Those collars have prongs that tighten and put pressure on a dog's neck. They cause punctures, sores, scarring, burns, bald patches and inflammation. What is more disturbing is that they can break a dog psychologically. I was at the Dogs Trust not long ago and saw dogs that had been subjected to that kind of treatment, and they are broken dogs.

It is often said that there is no such thing as a bad dog, only a bad owner, and, unfortunately, we have lots of bad owners. The proposition is a simple one. Those devices are inhumane, cruel and lazy shortcuts to training a dog properly. If people do not have the time, skill or patience to train a dog or other animal properly, they should not have the dog or animal at all. There is, therefore, no excuse for using those devices. Scotland is taking action on this. Wales has banned shock collars, and we need to do so as well. However, there has to be more than that. There have to be proper penalties for abusing animals. I do not think that there is anyone in this place who is not shocked when they see headline after headline about someone who has tortured an animal or starved an animal to death and got a slap on the wrist. Shockingly, they are banned from owning animals for a couple of years. Why on earth would anyone permit those people to own an animal ever again? That is why we need tougher penalties. Frankly, if you torture or starve a dog to death, you should never be allowed to own a dog again.

I will be unusually brief when speaking about the motion. We need not go beyond a few simple principles: first, the tools are available to purchase and use in Northern Ireland; secondly, they are cruel; and, thirdly, they reflect the mindset of an owner who enjoys inflicting pain or an owner who is lazy and cannot be bothered to train a dog properly. Those tools inflict not just physical pain but psychological trauma, and we need to see the end of them in Northern Ireland. We have listed some exemptions in the motion, which is not to say that we are convinced of the case for each exemption. There may need to be exemptions for some types of tools. For example, a dog warden might have to use equipment to get hold of a dangerous dog that we would not want an ordinary citizen to have, but we need to work those things through in legislation.

In principle, I am not opposed to the Alliance Party's amendment — we should ban the sale of those tools — but we have a query about legislative competence: is doing so within our remit in Northern Ireland? We got advice that enabling legislation or consent from Westminster might be required for us to ban the sale of such things; perhaps the Minister could clarify that. We certainly need to ban the possession, use and sale of those horrible tools.

I want us to recognise that our dogs and other animals in this country are voiceless and vulnerable, and they rely on our passing laws. This debate is on a motion, and I have criticised such non-binding motions as much as any Member has, but, where we have the opportunity of a motion, I will use it to raise awareness of an issue and to garner some kind of cross-community and cross-party support. If we all vote for the motion, perhaps we can, in the next mandate if not in this one, make a commitment that whoever holds the relevant Department will introduce legislation that would be uncontroversial and quickly agreed to protect our animals from those awful contraptions that have no place in a civilised society.

Keeping it brief, I commend our motion to all Members and encourage them to support it. I look forward to getting some clarity from the Minister on the legalities of banning the sale of those inhumane contraptions.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am happy to clarify that. The Member will recognise that, with the UK internal market, there are rules on it, but, if the motion is passed, that will give me a clear view from the House on which to make a case for the UK Government to introduce such a measure across the UK.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you. I will conclude by saying that that would be a positive result of the debate. I think that we can deal with this one fairly quickly, and I urge Members to support the motion in its entirety.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs" and insert: "to introduce a ban on the sale, use and ownership of aversive training tools for domestic animals as part of his Department’s animal welfare pathway; and further calls on the Minister to work with the Minister of Justice in considering penalties and ensuring that any resulting enforcement measures are adequately resourced.".

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

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

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Like the proposer of the motion, I do not think that I will take all the allocated time, but I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and begin by thanking the Ulster Unionist Party for tabling it for debate today.

In recent years, there has been a notable increase in efforts to enhance animal welfare standards in Northern Ireland. That progress reflects the dedication of the animal welfare groups and organisations that have consistently ensured that animal welfare remains high on the political agenda. A major driver of that progress has been the Alliance Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir. Minister Muir has made animal welfare a clear priority and has demonstrated his commitment to it through his words and his actions. In particular, Minister Muir has advanced important work through his animal welfare pathway. That pathway provides a structured, long-term framework to improve standards across the sector and to strengthen enforcement. I am pleased that the specific but serious animal welfare concern that is being discussed today is included in the animal welfare pathway. I look forward to hearing from the Minister shortly about his progress towards introducing legislation to ban aversive training devices.

Training devices such as shock collars are designed to cause pain, fear or discomfort in order to control an animal's behaviour. Electronic collars can deliver shocks of up to about 6,000 volts for as long as 11 seconds at a time. I ask Members to think through the impact that that would have on any animal. Evidence has shown that such methods can damage the relationship between owner and animal and, over time, can even make behavioural problems worse and more challenging. Positive, reward-based training is a more humane and more effective approach in the long term.

When I served as chair of the all-party group (APG) on animal welfare, the issue of aversive training devices was raised repeatedly by animal welfare organisations such as the USPCA and the Dogs Trust as a real and growing concern. Time and again, we heard from experts that those devices caused harm and that, to put it in straightforward terms, the law had not kept pace with the evidence.

To the organisations that consulted on the issue, I record my sincere thanks for their sustained work to bring it to light and to press for change. They continue to campaign against such devices and to educate the public about the harm that they can cause. I also welcome the work that Minister Muir is taking forward. His recent consultation on animal welfare reform offers a critical opportunity to modernise and strengthen protections for animals in Northern Ireland. Alongside the broader animal welfare pathway that I have already mentioned, it offers a strategic approach to raising standards and closing the gaps that have allowed harmful practices to persist.

For that reason, we tabled our amendment. It does not weaken the motion; rather, it enhances it by eliminating the references to exemptions for veterinarians, animal rescuers and dog wardens to allow them to use the tools in certain circumstances, about which we remain unclear as we start the debate. We do not believe that any circumstances warrant the use of such devices, given that there are ample more humane methods that can be used. Furthermore, if such devices can continue to be sold, legally owned or acquired, they will remain readily available, meaning that the risk of their continued use will also remain. A ban covering the sale, use and ownership of aversive training tools in all circumstances would help close the potential loopholes, restrict the circulation of devices and provide a clearer framework for enforcement.

Legislation is effective only when it can be properly enforced, however. That is why our amendment does not remove the call in the motion for:

"the Minister of Justice to work with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in considering appropriate penalties"

for those who continue to use such devices. Alliance has always been a party that stands up for animal welfare. We have a responsibility to give a voice to those who cannot speak up for themselves and to ensure that our laws reflect the best available evidence on animal welfare.

In summary, I have laid out the Alliance position on the motion and the basic thinking behind our amendment. Another reason that I ask for support for the amendment is that, in my role as an MLA, in my role as chair of the all-party group on animal welfare or in any other circumstance, I have not seen conclusive evidence that those who seek or would benefit from such exemptions have trialled, scoped out or exhausted all the other more dog-friendly solutions and alternatives that would avoid the severity and cruelty that the proposer of the motion pointed out and that, I am sure, other contributors to the debate will mention. I ask that Members keep that in mind.

The Alliance Party supports the motion as amended. I hope that Members will support our amendment and deliver a clear message that it is our intention to have in place stronger protections for domestic animals across Northern Ireland.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not doubt that there is agreement across the House that cruelty to animals is absolutely unacceptable. Nobody wants to see animals shocked, harmed or mistreated in the name of training, and that principle should unite us all. In many cases, humane, reward-based training methods are not only kinder but more effective. They build trust, encourage good behaviour and improve animal welfare standards. As we consider introducing stronger protections, however, we must approach the issue with a sense of balance. We should not ignore the realities faced by those who work with animals every day, such as vets, dog wardens and rescue workers, who often operate in challenging and, at times, dangerous circumstances.

If legislation is to be introduced, we need clarity, for which the two Members who have spoken have asked. I do not doubt that the Minister will be able to put more meat on the bones during his contribution.

We need to know exactly what devices are being considered, how they will be defined and whether different uses will be treated differently. There is a clear difference between someone using a device irresponsibly to punish an animal and a tightly controlled intervention designed to prevent injury or protect other animals. That distinction in those circumstances really matters, and it should be reflected in any future legislation.

We also need to recognise that education plays a vital role. Many owners do not have access to proper behavioural support or training advice. If we are serious about improving animal welfare —.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

We seem to have put the cart before the horse. I know that is not a great metaphor, but if the owners of animals do not have the knowledge, they should not take the animal in the first place. They should not take ownership of an animal if they do not have sufficient knowledge or capacity to train it properly. Good ownership involves getting that right first, and then people can take on the animal.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Education and training are important, and a lot more needs to be done from a departmental and council point of view.

I will go back to the need for education. If we are serious about improving animal welfare, we should support training programmes, promote awareness and help others to access expert guidance.

I will touch briefly on enforcement and the role that councils play. They carry a significant responsibility for animal welfare enforcement. While I welcome the Minister's commitment to improving animal welfare standards, additional responsibilities must be matched with additional resources to councils. Funding, training and care guidance are essential if new regulations are to be effective. We cannot expect councils to do more and, in the same vein, ask them to absorb the cost.

Our job is to ensure that any measures that we introduce are effective, proportionate and enforceable. As the issue moves forward, let us get the balance right. We need to end cruelty, prevent abuse and promote humane treatment, while recognising that, in a limited and carefully defined circumstance or circumstances, safety considerations must also be taken into account.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I support the motion. How we train an animal is not simply a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of animal welfare. We are a nation of animal lovers. Across Northern Ireland, hundreds of thousands of people share their homes with dogs and cats. Those animals depend very much on us for their care, and they have no say in how they are trained.

As has been said, the principle behind the motion is very simple. If we can train animals effectively without causing pain or fear, why would we choose methods that do? That principle is already acknowledged in DAERA's code of practice for the welfare of dogs. It recommends "positive reward-based training" and advises against methods that can cause pain or fear, including electric shock collars. However, as has been said, we have no specific prohibition on those devices.

An e-collar can be used unless its use amounts to unnecessary suffering. The emphasis, therefore, is on proving harm after it has happened. However, where the evidence shows that a particular method carries unnecessary welfare risks, we should prevent that harm in the first place.

Looking specifically at electronic collars, the evidence does not show a clear benefit that outweighs the welfare concerns. In a controlled study of dogs with recall problems, there was no consistent evidence that e-collar training was more effective. Yet, dogs trained with electronic stimulation spent more time tense and interacted less with their surroundings.

The Scottish and Welsh Governments' positions have been mentioned, but I will look at those in more detail. The Welsh Government held an independent review and reached a similar conclusion. They found that the welfare costs of electronic collars were likely to outweigh their benefits, pointing to the potential to cause pain, the availability of effective alternatives and the risk of misuse or abuse. As a result, by following an evidence-based approach, Wales retained its prohibition on attaching electronic shock collars to dogs and cats.

The Scottish Government's guidance says that effective dog training is reward-based, warning that aversive methods can cause "unacceptable pain, suffering and distress". Recently, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission concluded:

"Reward-based training methods are effective and are associated with limited or no welfare risks",

while aversive devices:

"have the potential to cause harm".

Aversive methods can stop a behaviour without addressing why it is happening. If fear, anxiety or frustration is behind a problem, making a dog frightened of the consequences may mask the symptom rather than address the underlying issue. Scottish guidance warns that aversive techniques can worsen behavioural problems or contribute to aggressive responses. Reward-based training teaches the animal what we want it to do and gives it a reason to repeat that behaviour. The British Small Animal Veterinary Association also recommends reward-based training, recognising that it builds confidence and trust and avoids the stresses that are associated with aversive methods.

Of course, not every dog is easy to train. Consider a rescue dog with a history of fear or neglect or a dog with serious recall or behavioural problems. Those animals may need specialist intervention, consistency and, in some cases, veterinary or behavioural assessment, not someone reaching first for a device that is designed to cause pain or fear. Of course, there are wider consequences, too. The Dogs Trust's Generation Pup research found that aversive training methods were associated with higher incidences of owners reporting problematic behaviour when dogs were a year old.

It is welcome that DAERA has formally consulted on banning specific aversive training devices, including electric shock collars, prong collars and choke chains. That consultation closed on 30 June. The Minister has indicated that he will consider the next steps once that has been reviewed. However, we need to be clear about what those next steps should be. We absolutely should legislate as soon as possible. We should prohibit the use and possession of specific aversive training devices while also carefully drafting exemptions where veterinary professionals and rescue organisations genuinely need particular equipment for safe handling or in an emergency. Mr Blair talked about his amendment. It is worrying that the amendment removes all mention of that or any consideration of whether those tools would be justified in exceptional circumstances. That warrants further discussion. Appropriately —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member draw her remarks to a close —

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Of course.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

— or indeed close them?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I will come to a close.

[Pause.]

I will close at that point, thank you.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much indeed.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I lost my run.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I now call the very sartorially elegant Daniel McCrossan. Daniel, over to you.

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

I do not think that I have ever been described as that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will accept the compliment.

I welcome the opportunity, on behalf of the SDLP, to support the motion that was tabled by the UUP and, of course, I acknowledge the Alliance amendment. As Members will know, I am a very proud dog owner. In our home, I have two dogs, Hudson and Rosie. Hudson is two years old and Rosie is 10 years old. They are both bulldogs. They bring so much joy to our lives, particularly after some days in the Assembly, as people can imagine.

Earlier this month, I attended, on behalf of the SDLP, the Royal Kennel Club's Stormont Dog of the Year event, which celebrates the special bond between people and their dogs. I was delighted that, whilst he had some competition from my good friend in the Alliance Party, Hudson won the "Pawblic Vote". That was very welcome because it was an appreciation of the considerable joy, companionship and loyalty that our pets bring to our lives.

Those experiences only reinforce my belief that we have a duty to treat animals with kindness, care and respect. That is why there is no place in modern animal welfare for training methods that rely on pain, fear or intimidation. Shock collars, prong collars, choke chains and grot collars are aversive devices that are designed to alter behaviour through discomfort or punishment. Many animal welfare organisations, trainers and campaigners have highlighted repeatedly that, rather than building confidence and trust, the physical and psychological harm that those tools can cause creates anxiety, fear and long-term behavioural problems.

For reference's sake, Rosie was a rescue dog. She was two when we had the great privilege of getting her. She was terrified of men and terrified of sticks and objects, so she obviously went through a horrific amount of abuse under her previous owner. Luckily, she has come through that and rules the house these days. It shows what loving and understanding your pets can do. We know that there is a better way of doing things, and reward-based training methods are used successfully every day by responsible owners and professional trainers. Those approaches strengthen relationships between owner and animal, encourage positive behaviour and achieve results without causing unnecessary suffering. The motion is therefore about bringing our legislation into line with modern expectations of animal welfare. It is about recognising that animals are sentient beings and that training should be based on patience, encouragement and positive reinforcement.

I welcome the Minister's recent consultation on animal welfare reform, and I encourage animal welfare organisations, trainers, veterinary professionals and members of the public to participate in it. However, the consultation must now lead to the necessary action. We have an opportunity during this mandate to take a significant step forward by prohibiting the use and possession of aversive training tools. Importantly, the motion also recognises the need for sensible exemptions. Vets, animal rescue organisations and dog wardens may require such specialist equipment, as referenced by Miss McIlveen, in emergency situations or where safe handling is necessary. Those practical considerations can and should be accommodated. Finally, any new legislation must be backed by effective enforcement and appropriate penalties. There is little value in passing a law unless those responsible for enforcing it have the resources to do so effectively.

Our pets enrich our lives in countless ways. Whether it is Hudson and Rosie, who are like two children to me, or the beloved pets in households right across Northern Ireland, they deserve to be treated with compassion and be protected from all and any unnecessary harm. For those reasons, I am pleased to support the motion, and I encourage Members to do likewise.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

In rising to contribute to the debate, I am sure that it goes without saying that a dog is a man's best friend. All those who are dog lovers can testify to the welcome that they receive from their dog when they return home each day and how rewarding that is for them. They can also testify to the loyalty that their dog has towards them, and, for many, their pets become part of the family. Therefore, the treatment and welfare of our domestic animals must be a priority.

While the training of dogs is essential for various parts of life, whether that be for the sheep farmer in gathering up his flock, the country sports personnel out to enjoy a day's shooting on land or water where the dog fetches the prey, or simply the family pet, all such training must be done in a humane manner. The aversive training tools used in today's training of our domestic animals, whether dogs or cats — shock collars, prong collars, choke chains and grot collars, as set out in the motion — are nothing short of barbaric and cruel means of training those animals by inflicting pain or discomfort on the animal to stop an unwanted action. It is clear from evidence from the Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association that, rather than teaching an animal how to behave, those tools have the opposite effect and create a profoundly negative impact on the animal's behaviour and well-being. That negative impact remains with that animal for the rest of its life.

Over the years, as a dog lover, I have mainly kept Labradors and springer spaniels. My last two springer spaniels were dogs that were being trained for use in gun sport but, being gun-shy, were discharged. I then picked them up for use as family pets. They were dogs that had all the signs of being subjected to such training tools, which had a lasting negative impact on them. They were shy, they cowered away to their bed at the least little noise and, when you tried to put a lead on them and take them for a walk, they lay trembling. Those are only some of the lasting negative effects. With much love and care, it took almost 12 months to gain their full trust and remove some of that lasting fear.

Therefore, it is important that the tools that are causing such adverse effects on our domestic animals by inflicting pain and discomfort are banned, both for sale and for use, as they should not and cannot have any place in modern animal care. Humane, reward-based training methods have proven to be very effective in strengthening trust between the animal and its owner, and that leads to much better outcomes. We appreciate that such methods may well take a little more patience and be a little slower, but the reward is there.

We must ensure that we do not fall behind animal welfare legislation across the rest of the UK. We have seen Scotland and Wales take action. However, as legislation is introduced, it will require scrutiny so that it does not inadvertently restrict legitimate safe handling and emergency measures related to livestock protection. That may be where I have a wee bit of concern with the Alliance amendment. It would remove from the likes of vets, rescue workers, dog wardens and so forth all the measures that may be necessary in emergency situations. For legislation to be effective, it must be developed with sufficient safeguards. The motion will send a clear message that cruelty and fear-based training methods are no longer acceptable standards of care. We must ensure that animal welfare protections are robust in principle and workable in practice. I support the motion.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I speak as someone who also enjoys all the benefits of pet ownership, having had two German shepherds over the years. I am now firmly under the control of our cat, Casper, who enjoys an extravagant lifestyle at our expense, but I would not be without him. As someone who cares deeply about animal welfare, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

I believe that ensuring that animals are treated with care, dignity and compassion commands broad support across the Assembly and throughout society. A growing body of evidence from animal welfare organisations, veterinary professionals and training experts highlights the negative impact that aversive training methods can have on domestic animals. Tools that rely on pain, fear or discomfort to suppress unwanted behaviour can cause physical and psychological distress. Rather than teaching an animal how to behave properly, they often create anxiety and confusion, and they can contribute to long-term behavioural issues. By contrast, reward-based training methods are increasingly recognised as the most effective and humane approach. Those methods encourage positive behaviour through reinforcement while building trust and strengthening the relationship between animals and their owners, as my colleague Tom has eloquently described.

It is important to recognise that the continued availability of those devices may lead some owners to believe that they are acceptable or harmless training aids, when evidence increasingly suggests otherwise. That is why the issue deserves serious consideration. Other parts of the UK have already taken steps in that direction. Wales has prohibited the use of electric shock collars, and Scotland has moved towards tighter restrictions through official guidance and ongoing consideration of further measures. Therefore, it is right that Northern Ireland examines how best to strengthen protections for domestic animals and ensures that our legislation keeps pace with developments elsewhere.

The DUP has consistently supported measures that improve animal welfare. We welcome the work undertaken by the Department in examining reforms in that area, including consideration of aversive training devices. However, it is equally important that any legislation introduced is carefully drafted and properly scrutinised. Animal welfare legislation must be both robust and workable in practice. We must guard against unintended consequences and ensure that any new restrictions do not inadvertently impede legitimate and necessary activities. In particular, there must be appropriate exemptions for situations where the safety of an animal, a handler or the wider public is at risk. Veterinarians, dog wardens, animal rescuers and others operating in emergency circumstances may require additional access to certain tools for safe handling purposes. Therefore, any future legislative framework must recognise those realities. For that reason, I have concerns about the amendment. The motion rightly acknowledges that exceptional circumstances may exist where "appropriate exemptions" are necessary. It is important that, as legislation is developed, such practical considerations are not overlooked in pursuit of a well-intended objective.

Finally, any change in the law must be supported by effective enforcement arrangements. There is little benefit in creating legislative provisions that cannot be properly implemented. That is why cooperation between the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Justice, alongside adequate resourcing, will be essential if the proposals are to achieve their intended purpose. If legislation is developed appropriately, with the necessary safeguards and practical exemptions, it can send a clear message that fear-based and cruel training methods have no place in modern animal care, while ensuring that public safety and animal welfare remain fully protected. I am therefore pleased to support the principles of the motion.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion, which goes directly to how we protect animal welfare and promote humane, evidence-based training for dogs and cats in Northern Ireland. Let me be clear: improving animal welfare is one of my highest priorities, and the use of devices that control behaviour through pain, fear or distress is not consistent with the standards that I want to see for companion animals. That commitment is reflected in the animal welfare pathway that I launched in May 2025, which made it clear that stronger protections for dogs and cats, including action on aversive training devices, are a key part of that reform programme. One of my published priorities is to examine the use of electronic collars and consider the approaches taken in other jurisdictions. I have previously indicated my preference for a ban on specified aversive training devices, because the welfare evidence is clear: such devices can cause pain, fear, anxiety, stress, physical injury and longer-term behavioural harm while reward-based training provides a humane and effective alternative.

The consultation on proposals to ban the use of hand-held, remote-controlled electric shock collars, choke collars and prong collars has now closed. The responses have been analysed, and I am considering the advice from officials. Those devices have been prioritised because they are associated with a particular risk of pain, distress, physical injury and behavioural harm. However, the concern is not simply that such devices may be misused; it is that their intended operation relies on an unpleasant stimulus to suppress behaviour, and that can compromise animal welfare even when the user believes that they are acting responsibly. My Department has also considered whether electronic containment fence systems and spray collars should be included. However, the current policy focus is on the devices that were assessed as presenting a greater risk of direct welfare harm or misuse.

The proposal is consistent with the wider direction of travel across these islands and beyond. Wales has prohibited the use of electronic collars on dogs and cats since 2010. Scotland strongly discourages their use through guidance and promotes reward-based training methods, while the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC) has recommended a ban on electric shock collars. England did not proceed with proposed regulations. Ireland, however, has signalled its intention to legislate. At a European level, the direction of travel has become clear in the recently published regulation on the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability. While it is not known yet whether that regulation will apply to Northern Ireland, I intend to make the case to the UK Government that it should.

In all this, the objective is not to punish responsible owners but to prevent avoidable suffering and to make it clear that humane training must be the norm. I recognise that there are differing views. Animal welfare and veterinary organisations, including the British Veterinary Association (BVA), Dogs Trust, the USPCA, Battersea and others, have argued for stronger restrictions or bans because such devices can cause pain, anxiety, stress, injury and behavioural harm and because effective, non-aversive alternatives are available. I recognise that some farmers, rural dog owners and trainers have raised concerns about livestock worrying, recall and control. Those are serious issues, but they do not remove the need to protect animals from methods that cause unnecessary pain, fear or distress.

If legislation is taken forward — it is my desire to introduce the legislation within this mandate — I will work with the Department of Justice to ensure that penalties and enforcement arrangements are proportionate, credible and capable of deterring harmful practice. The proposal under consideration is to align any penalties with those already available under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in cases of unnecessary suffering, namely a maximum of 12 months' imprisonment, a fine of up to £20,000 or both on summary conviction.

The motion also refers to exemptions for veterinarians, animal rescuers and dog wardens. I fully recognise the importance of safe handling in emergency and high-risk situations and understand the arguments in support of exemptions for those groups, but I have not yet reached a final view on whether any exemptions should apply. Those professionals already have access to established handling and restraint methods, such as control poles, humane traps, nets, slip leads, muzzles and, where appropriate, sedation or anaesthesia. Such tools are designed for safe management and restraint. Using them is not the same as using aversive training devices to modify behaviour through pain, fear or discomfort. A broad exemption could undermine the purpose of the ban, create uncertainty for enforcement bodies and blur the distinction between legitimate handling equipment and devices that are intended to suppress behaviour through aversive stimuli.

Separate issues have been raised about specified service dogs that operate in particular public safety and security contexts. It has been suggested that certain operational requirements may warrant consideration separate from that that applies to companion animals. Those issues are being considered alongside wider animal welfare evidence, legal advice, operational requirements and enforceability. Any such exemption would require a cogent evidence base demonstrating operational necessity, the reason why non-aversive alternatives are insufficient, the safeguards that would apply and the way in which the exemption could be tightly controlled. My position is that any exemption must be exceptional, evidence-based, proportionate, tightly drawn, subject to appropriate oversight and capable of effective enforcement.

My position is clear: animals should not be trained through pain, fear or intimidation where humane and effective alternatives are available. The consultation has concluded, and the responses have been analysed. I will consider the consultation findings alongside the advice from my officials and the points raised in the debate before determining the final way forward. My priority, however, will remain the welfare of dogs and cats. Where there is a clear welfare risk and humane alternatives are available, I will not hesitate to act. My approach will be fair, evidence-based, enforceable and firmly grounded in animal welfare.

I thank Members for their contribution to the debate, and I reassure everyone that it is my desire to take forward the measure in this mandate, subject to speedy approval by the Executive.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, so I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until then. The debate will continue after the questions for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to speak will be Andrew McMurray.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.52 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

1. Miss Hargey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on preparations in their Department for a future Executive programme to tackle paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime. (AQO 4023/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime was extended until March 2027, on the condition that it was reviewed. The process is being finalised, and it will be for the Executive to consider the findings and take decisions on the next steps. The Executive Office has responsibility for the Communities in Transition (CIT) project, which has delivered £29 million of support aimed at building community resilience since 2019 across a range of programmes that improve mental health and well-being, support vulnerable young people, tackle exploitation, create pathways to employment, strengthen restorative practice and reclaim public spaces from the influence of paramilitarism.

Until the next steps are agreed, TEO will continue to work with delivery partners on mainstreaming and embedding current work. CIT will also carry out an area impact review across the areas to assess the impact of the interventions, identify what has worked well, and highlight where issues remain. That will inform any future programme.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Thank you very much, deputy First Minister. The Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) recently gave evidence to the Parades Commission regarding the Drumcree application. The LCC represents illegal organisations that are still involved in racketeering, drug dealing and asking for payments from their own communities. Do you agree that they were also heavily involved in the previous Drumcree dispute, which led to the deaths of 21 people from that community? Do you also agree that it beggars belief that illegal loyalist paramilitary organisations are facilitated in any way to influence legal processes, particularly those around parades?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

What beggars belief is the brass neck of Sinn Féin. Just last week, you stood on the road, shoulder to shoulder with dissidents, Provos and those with appalling convictions. Indeed, just this weekend, we had the First Minister standing cuddling a terrorist — Breandán Mac Cionnaith — who was jailed for blowing up Portadown's main street. If the First Minister has forgotten that, I suggest that she look up the photographs. What message does that send?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Answer the question.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Breandán Mac Cionnaith —

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Answer the question.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— left Sinn Féin because he disagreed —.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Answer the question.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. Just a moment, deputy First Minister. Miss Hargey, you have said that about 20 times. We have heard it enough now. Thank you.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

On a point of order.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

There are no points of order during Question Time. You should know that by now.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Deirdre Hargey has attempted to make a blatant political point. She has done so in such a brazen way, given the hypocrisy of not only herself but her party leader in Northern Ireland and her overall party leader in standing with dissidents such as Colin Duffy and standing on a stage with a man who left Sinn Féin because he disagreed with its support for the police — a man who is unrepentant about blowing up Portadown town centre. We will not be taking any lectures from you.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Deputy First Minister, do you agree that, given Miss Hargey's very enthusiastic participation in what was an illegal roadblock in Portadown, alongside senior Sinn Féin elected representatives and, concerningly, individuals linked to dissident republicanism, she is in no position to seek updates on tackling paramilitarism, criminality or organised crime while her party shows such a blatant disregard for the rule of law?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is absolutely clear that what we have seen over the past week has appalled many people across Northern Ireland. They have seen a party that demands equality and then claims an exemption for itself. That does not work. The idea that it is somehow above the law while everybody else has to be subject to the law does not work, regardless of your view of the Orange Order or the parade. What is disgraceful, and what has appalled people, is the damage that has been done to the post of First Minister by a First Minister who stood there to defy the law. She defied the law in the face of not just Portadown Orangemen but a decision by the Court of Appeal and the PSNI, all of which made it clear that the Parades Commission decision was as it was and that the law should be upheld. That is disgraceful conduct. What is absolutely clear is that, this week, Sinn Féin has been dancing to the beat of the dissident drum, time and again. That is disgraceful.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Deputy First Minister, the programme that the question is actually about deals with the scourge of paramilitarism. How will that programme deal with paramilitary organisations that advertise their control over their areas through items such as murals and other visible paramilitary memorials?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his important question. It is important to have leadership in that area. I have absolutely no truck with paramilitarism: there was never any role for it in Northern Ireland, and there certainly is not a role for it today. That leadership should send a clear message that paramilitarism was completely unacceptable then and is unacceptable today. Paramilitaries need to get their jackboots off the necks of local communities, and my party has always been clear about that. I welcome the fact that the programme has brought a significant amount of support — £29 million through CIT specifically. The vast majority of that work has been about trying to encourage resilience within communities, because we know that some of those people try to manipulate some very difficult circumstances including addiction, mental health issues, poverty and debt. That programme has done significant beneficial work to support resilience. That is why I support such programmes not just being mainstreamed but continuing.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

2. Mr K Buchanan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any assessment made of whether there is sufficient independent oversight of the Victims’ Payments Board to ensure that applicants to the programme, particularly those who are unsuccessful, are treated in a way that is trauma-informed and supportive. (AQO 4024/22-27)

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

5. Mr T Buchanan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. (AQO 4027/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 2 and 5 together.

Since opening in August 2021, the scheme has received 16,323 applications and paid over £162 million, providing important recognition of the harm suffered. Although the scheme has closed to new applications, the president can consider late applications where there has been a material change in circumstances or, in exceptional cases, where it is equitable to do so.

The Victims’ Payments Board remains in place to determine outstanding applications and appeals and continues to adopt a victim-centred, trauma-informed approach, recognising the challenges that applicants may face when recounting traumatic experiences. The board regularly engages with victims organisations and representative groups to ensure that victims' views continue to inform its work. To support applications, TEO has provided over £13 million for welfare officers and support staff in victims and survivors organisations, through the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), to assist with the process and provide additional health and well-being services. That funding will continue alongside investment to improve efficiency and enhance applicant support.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Language is important, deputy First Minister. Some people in the House do not understand that. A recent appeal report from the Victims' Payments Board to a lady who had lost her husband stated:

"The description of the room in which she saw the surgeon and her husband was vague".

Deputy First Minister, a lady in her 80s was expected to describe a room from nearly 50 years ago, when she was looking at her husband, who lay shot. She was expected to describe that room. Is that language appropriate? What support are victims getting to assist them with their long journey?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for raising that important case. I have no doubt that many Members across the Chamber listen to many of the people — victims and survivors — who are going through that process. Putting the scheme in place was the right thing to do. The sheer number of applications to the scheme — over 16,000 — demonstrates the huge and terrible legacy of the Troubles for the people of Northern Ireland and how many people have been impacted and are still traumatised.

Of course, anything that is said in the course of such applications, including by the panel, should be trauma-informed, sensitive and understanding of the fact that, for many victims and survivors such as your constituent, it was probably one of the most traumatic and horrific things that happened to them. It is understandable that their memories are perhaps not so clear and that, certainly 50 years later, there may be challenges with that.

I recognise that going through that process has been hugely traumatic for so many people across the community. That is why I am really pleased that, on the back of the Member's strong representations regarding the additional needs, with so many more people coming forward to victims and survivors groups, we have been able to find an additional £750,000 to go to victims and survivors groups in-year to provide that additional wrap-around support, particularly in relation to mental health.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the deputy First Minister. What effect will the First Minister's recent actions and disregard for the rule of law and order and our police service have on victims who have been subject to permanent injury and on officers whose colleagues were murdered by the IRA in its murderous campaign, which was supported by Sinn Féin?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. As I said earlier, leadership is exceptionally important. It is really important that we make clear that the acts of violence and terrorism of the past were absolutely wrong and that no person deserved to be injured or killed during the Troubles. There was always an alternative to injuring someone or taking away their life.

We have seen, and not just in recent weeks, the commemoration and glorification of terrorists who carried out some of the most vile acts. As I referenced earlier during Question Time, we have the likes of Breandán Mac Cionnaith being taken in by not just Sinn Féin but the SDLP. They have stood shoulder to shoulder with that man, who is entirely unrepentant about his terrorist activity. He was prosecuted for bombing Portadown town centre and left Sinn Féin because of his opposition to the PSNI. We need to send a clear message that we support the rule of law, that we support the PSNI and that we certainly do not support terrorism and those who made the victims and survivors of this place.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Will the deputy First Minister explain why the dispute resolution process with the British Government regarding their outstanding financial contribution to victims' payments is still unresolved?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question, which is an important one. The scheme has attracted significantly more applicants than the number that was first envisaged back at the beginning of the scheme, when it was suggested that around 500 severely physically injured victims and survivors would come forward. We now have over 16,000 applicants. The estimated overall cost of the scheme is around £1 billion.

We know that the criteria were changed significantly by Westminster. We want to be as generous as we can be, and we understand fully that many of the people coming forward deserve that help and support, but, undoubtedly, it has put huge financial pressure on Northern Ireland's block grant. It is absolutely right that the UK Government step up and recognise that some of the decisions that they have taken have significantly increased the cost of the scheme — by not just tens of millions but hundreds of millions of pounds. Therefore, it is completely reasonable for us to ask the UK Government to make a contribution and help to alleviate some of the pressure on a Budget that we want to prioritise for the day-to-day running of public services in Northern Ireland.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Last week, I heard from a constituent who spent two and a half hours going through the process and then had her application turned down. She is too devastated to appeal the decision. You have indicated that there have been over 16,000 applications. I think that I am right in saying that, to date, only 35% to 40% of the applications have been processed. There are a lot of people in the system, and, at the end of it, they may not get their claim through. How long do you anticipate the process taking? What support is in place for applicants who do not get the result that they are looking for?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. It is really important that we recognise that this is a scheme that takes time. It was designed, in part, like that, because we did not want victims and survivors to have to gather all of the evidence themselves prior to their putting in an application. The way in which the system is set up means that the applications go in and then the process of reaching out to, say, the MOD, the armed forces, the PSNI, the legacy bodies or the health trusts and others starts. We recognise that all of those bodies are under significant pressure. For example, I understand that just a small number of people are working on the information requests, so I have been liaising with the MOD on my concern about the lack of a significant dedicated team in that area. That holds up the information coming to the panel and its ability to process it. Unfortunately, it will take a number of years to get through all of the applications. I welcome the fact that there was such interest in the scheme. It shows that there is a real need.

One thing that we did not anticipate was so many bereaved coming forward who perhaps did not fit perfectly within the criteria of this scheme but are clearly looking for acknowledgement, support and help, and that is something that we absolutely need to take forward.

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

To pre-empt your answer, deputy First Minister, I say that I was proud to stand with residents of the Garvaghy Road.

Deputy First Minister, you mentioned the victim-centred, trauma-informed approach. The reality is that, for many victims, it is almost the "Troubles permanent disablement re-traumatisation scheme"; they feel that they have been re-traumatised and hurt, because, to a large extent, they are made to speak as if they did something wrong and as if they deserved it. Multiple families were refused the payment because they could not produce the relevant documentation to meet the criteria to prove that they suffered horrendously during the Troubles: what do you say to those families?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is incredibly important that those who suffered during the Troubles get all the help and support that they can. We recommend to anybody going through that process to reach out to a local victims and survivors' group to get that help and support.

I remain disappointed that the Member is justifying his actions. It was not just standing in a line with Sinn Féin and dissidents such as Colin Duffy; he was also pictured, proudly so, with Breandán Mac Cionnaith, somebody who, as I have said, is clearly an unrepentant terrorist who carried out a bombing — a terrorist act — in Portadown town centre. Bombings were perhaps the most terrible of terrorist activities because they were indiscriminate in targeting women, children, civilians and whoever else got in the way. I am not surprised at Sinn Féin dancing to the beat of a dissident drum, but I am surprised at the SDLP doing that. It is deeply disappointing, and I suggest that the Member apologises for that behaviour.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

3. Mr Carroll asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their Department’s efforts to bring two injured Gazan children to Northern Ireland for medical treatment. (AQO 4025/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member will be aware that, in June, the UK Government announced the resumption of medical evacuations of critically ill and injured children and their immediate families from Gaza. That follows a similar exercise undertaken in autumn 2025, when 50 children and their families arrived safely in the UK from Gaza, that included two children receiving treatment in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Yvette Cooper, recently wrote to us seeking Executive support for that further phase. Given the nature of the request, the Department of Health is initially considering the clinical, operational and resource implications. To support the work, Department of Health officials continue to engage with colleagues across the UK to assist with wider planning. As with the previous programme, any participation by Northern Ireland would require Executive consideration and agreement before a final decision can be taken.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. Two is a small number of Palestinian children given the scale of destruction meted out to them by the Israeli state. As you said, those are children who were injured in a war, a war carried out by Netanyahu and the genocidal Israeli state. Minister, will you give a commitment that your party will not block this at the Executive?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is primarily for Health to lead in assessing requirements and making sure that the particular area of medical intervention is available for what needs to be done for whomever comes to Northern Ireland. Of course, there are other considerations including, for example, the size of the family or those accompanying any proposed child. There are challenges, particularly housing and school places availability, so all those issues have to be considered in the round. A proposal has been made but has not yet come before the Executive. I understand that the Health Minister submitted a proposed paper to the Executive, perhaps last Friday. I think that the proposal from the UK Government is to take one child rather than the two that the Member mentioned, but we will, of course, look carefully at that.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The destruction of the Gaza health system is a direct consequence of the Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people, for which, of course, the deputy First Minister's party has been a cheerleader. The scale of death, injury, disability and trauma is almost beyond comprehension. Does the deputy First Minister agree that the Executive, as a matter of urgency, should do everything that they can to assist in the medical evacuation of critically ill and injured children so that they can access the medical care that they need urgently?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There is a UK-wide evacuation scheme. As I indicated, we have been requested to take one child from the most recent phase of the scheme, which includes 50 children. The UK Government have led the way on medical evacuations. As I said, we want to make sure that, whatever is proposed, the right support network is there so that, for example, we do not place a family in an area of Northern Ireland without school places, suitable housing or the right support. All those issues will be examined in detail.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

The conflict in the Middle East is having a serious impact across society, including on our energy prices. What representations has the deputy First Minister made to the UK Government to ensure that Northern Ireland is given adequate support, especially given our heavy reliance on oil?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her important question. There is no doubt that the impacts of conflict are now felt not just where the conflict is happening, which, in this case, is in the Middle East, but here at home. Families face pressure from increased fuel costs that are a direct result of situations elsewhere, particularly, in relation to energy price increases, in the Middle East.

We have made it clear to the UK Government that we need to be included at a much earlier stage with regard to any proposed scheme or intervention to support families. There should be that support. I welcome the scheme that my DUP ministerial colleague Gordon Lyons has brought forward to provide people with £100 for support with oil costs, but I have been contacted, as, I am sure, has the Member, by many people who are feeling the pinch from increases in fuel costs, including gas prices.

We have called on the UK Government to remove VAT from some of the energy charges. This is not the time to be raising revenue on the backs of hard-pressed families. Families here, including those with children, are feeling the pressure. They need support, and we will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that any scheme that the UK Government propose can work for Northern Ireland.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I hope that no one who is listening is confused: medical treatment for two Gazan children is not the reason that we have energy problems in Northern Ireland. I chair the all-party group (APG) on international development, and what strikes me is that, in the media and in politics, the issue is sometimes viewed as a binary one, when, regardless of their background, people across society care desperately about what is happening to children in Gaza. The public are behind our help for those two people. Is the deputy First Minister aware of the depth of feeling across the board, not just in communities that are perceived to support Palestine? Everyone is horrified at what is happening to children, and, given our history, they would like to see us do what we can for two children.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I mentioned, we are being asked to take one child, not two. I previously agreed, through an urgent procedure, to take two injured children from Gaza. I agreed to it under the previous evacuation scheme, so that has already happened.

Energy prices have everything to do with the situation. The conflict in the Middle East is having an impact there, as the scheme highlights, and here. Plenty of families with children here are feeling the squeeze. What I am emphasising is this: conflict impacts not just on the place where it appears to be but across the board. At this time, we are all seeing the impact, and we should all do what we can to support people, including families with children here.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

4. Mr Brett asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline their work to ensure the full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. (AQO 4026/22-27)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

6. Mrs Dodds asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any engagement they have had in relation to the UK-wide Armed Forces Bill currently proceeding through Westminster, which aims to better support veterans. (AQO 4028/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 6 together. I may therefore take slightly longer than the allocated two minutes.

The armed forces covenant has not been formally adopted by the Executive. While Northern Ireland Departments have not all signed up to the covenant through Executive endorsement, significant work is happening across some Departments. It is important to say that the Armed Forces Act 2021 applies. That Act places a statutory duty on, for example, housing, education and health services to have due regard to the armed forces covenant. I do not know why that is not talked about more — it rarely comes up in discussions on the matter — but there is a statutory duty of due regard.

The Executive Office has received correspondence on veterans' issues and on the Armed Forces Bill, which aims to build on the armed forces legislation from 2021 and include more public bodies.

The correspondence remains under consideration, and the Executive Office continues to consider correspondence received in relation to veterans issues and the Armed Forces Bill.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The deputy First Minister will be aware that the democratic position articulated by the House was to adopt the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. It is clear that the First Minister for all's party is blocking the adoption of the armed forces covenant. Will the deputy First Minister join me and the 37,000 veterans across Northern Ireland in making it clear that we will not be second-class citizens and will not be discriminated against by Sinn Féin?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. I am deeply proud of the legacy of all those who served in the armed forces with dignity. Of course, just yesterday, I attended the Ulster Defence Regiment’s recommittal of the standards for its Lisburn branch. It was a time to remember that extraordinary contribution. Well in excess of 40,000 people served in the Ulster Defence Regiment, which was, frankly, one of the most dangerous regiments anywhere on the globe. Almost 200 were killed on duty and, shamefully, 61 of those men and women were killed after they had retired from duty, which creates a huge legacy. Of course, we contribute across our armed forces as well.

Our armed forces community has clear additional needs and requirements. For example, the children of those who serve may attend a number of primary schools during their education. If you have moved to a number of bases, you do not have the same opportunity to be on a health waiting list and get the interventions that you require. There are very clear disadvantages for children, families, serving personnel and our veterans. It is absolutely right that, if you are a veteran from Northern Ireland who has served in our British armed forces, you should not suffer disadvantage and discrimination and be left out simply because of Sinn Féin's bigoted intolerance of the service that you have given.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, deputy First Minister, for your unequivocal support for our armed forces; it is important for us to hear that today.

Sinn Féin's position seems to be a denial of rights, particularly the rights of people whom they do not like or do not want to have rights. Will you agree that the denial of rights to members of our armed forces is akin to the denial of rights to those who want to complete the march down the Garvaghy Road?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. What we hear from Sinn Féin time and time again is a demand for equality, but what does that look like? Equality has to be something that applies equally to everyone, but what we hear are Sinn Féin's demands for equality and then claims for exemptions for themselves. We saw it at Bobby Storey's funeral. We see it in their unlawful behaviour on the Garvaghy Road, and we have seen it time and time again.

As I said, at the heart of the armed forces covenant is objective evidence that there is objective disadvantage for, for example, the children of serving armed forces personnel. For example, the criteria for a primary school may include that the child or family must live in the area for a sustained time or have a sibling in the school. If the family has been moved from one base to another, that is simply not possible. It is likewise with health waiting lists and housing waiting lists. There is an objectively assessed disadvantage to those families and children, but Sinn Féin care about disadvantage only when it applies to them. Sinn Féin only care about equality when it applies to them. When it comes to the evidentially objective disadvantage of others, Sinn Féin is prepared to say, "No, nay, never".

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I note that the deputy First Minister has waxed lyrical about the DUP's support for British veterans. That is, of course, in stark contrast to its historical links to Ulster Resistance, which supplied weapons to the UDA and the UVF, which were involved in hundreds of sectarian murders. Of course, the deputy First Minister will be aware of the attempt by Ulster Resistance to acquire weapons in Paris from the apartheid South African regime. How does the deputy First Minister square the DUP's support for the British state's forces with its historical involvement with Ulster Resistance?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have said it before, but people are so sick of the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin. You go along to commemorations of paramilitary organisations and individuals. You have, on your very Benches, people who have been unrepentant terrorists who inflicted incredible harm to the people of Northern Ireland. Let me say, once again, that I am absolutely opposed to terrorism and paramilitarism. I always have been, and I always will be.

One party here always goes back to the past and lives in the past. The First Minister, when called out about going to commemorations of events from 50 years ago for terrorists, turned around and accused others of living in the past. The people of Northern Ireland are not stupid. They can see what party wants to drag people back to the sectarian, bigoted past of their narrative and their glorification of terrorism and their justification. This party will not be found wanting when calling out any terrorist.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will move on to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of the fact that what the public want now is responsibility, whether the deputy First Minister will promise that she and her party will not make any more serious strategic misjudgements and to state whether she will give a commitment, here and now, not to resign her office before the end of the mandate, given the fact that the past week has been extraordinarily difficult for this place, especially for the decent people of the Garvaghy Road who simply want to live in peace, with, once again, the shadow of division and dysfunction hanging over us, albeit while most people did not think that the DUP could make a worse strategic misjudgement than backing Boris Johnson and outsourcing its judgement to him, it has, by giving Jamie Bryson — a self-published author whose only readers appear to be in the deputy First Minister's party — the wheel. (AQT 2651/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will say to the leader of the Opposition that the application was submitted by the Portadown Orangemen, and they were perfectly legally entitled to do so. The Portadown Orangemen can choose their legal representatives as they wish, in the same way that any other party to the court action can choose their legal representation. Shame on you and shame on the SDLP for standing shoulder to shoulder with dissidents such as Colin Duffy and Breandán Mac Cionnaith, and getting photographed on that road instead of upholding the law —

[Interruption.]

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

Holding the line.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

You absolutely defied the law. It is bad enough that Sinn Féin is dancing to the beat of the dissident drum, but it is absolutely shocking that the SDLP is doing so too. The Member should take the opportunity to call out those who broke the law. They do not have to agree with the outcome of the court, but the rule of law must be upheld. That is what we all signed up to, and one party in the Chamber has been deeply reckless about it. The Member needs to stand up, be heard and call out those who defied the law, not those on these sides of the Benches who want to uphold the law.

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

Deputy First Minister, it would be very easy for me to draw you and your party's attention to your past. My party is proud of its record. We stand and have always stood as a party of rights and non-violence, and I will take no lectures from your party. However, I am not about throwing accusations around the Chamber; I am about the public good.

The public are facing charges of £2·00 a litre for diesel at the pumps. They are facing bills of £1,000 to fill their heating oil tanks. They are facing the winter with a health service that is not working. That is what we should all be focused on here. I will ask you again because you did not answer my questions: first, will you promise not to resign your office, and, secondly, will you accept that there are those in unionism who want to drag us back to a place where we should not go? Will you tell them where to go?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Again, shame on you —

[Interruption.]

Shame on you. You shake weakly in the face of calling out Sinn Féin, but you are happy to call out the DUP at every turn. May I give you some advice? It will not do the SDLP any electoral good to stand in the shadow of Sinn Féin and the dissidents on the Garvaghy Road and not stand up for the rule of law and what is right. I have made very clear that one party has been reckless in all that, and that is Sinn Féin, and one party is being responsible, and that is the DUP.

[Interruption.]

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

[Inaudible.]

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This week called for leadership. It called for people to come together to urge —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr McGrath.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— calm heads, to urge people to get off the streets, to urge dialogue and compromise, but that did not happen. I say to the members of the Opposition to stop shaking weakly in the face of Sinn Féin and start to stand up for what is right.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

T2. Mrs Dillon asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, noting that, in confronting injustice, racism and discrimination, civil disobedience is widely recognised the world over as a legitimate and democratic option, whether the deputy First Minister agrees that civil disobedience is a legitimate response to injustice and sectarian intimidation, and whether the deputy First Minister can answer for herself rather than give the opinion of those who sit behind her or Jamie Bryson. (AQT 2652/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This is all about the type of Northern Ireland that we want to build and that we should have by now. It is not the one that is based on the intolerance, hate and bile that I have heard being directed towards British identity or culture over the course of the past week. The vast majority of people across Northern Ireland felt that we had come far. In fact, many organisations and communities take part in activities where all different types of traditions are represented.

This week, we did not hear much from the Garvaghy Road residents. For some reason, they did not seem to be able to get their voices heard. Of course, the voices who shouted the loudest were those of the Member's party colleagues, all of whom swanned on to the Garvaghy Road and dominated the headlines. We had the First Minister prancing down the Garvaghy Road with Sinn Féin videographers, photographers and MLAs and with councillors from every part of Ireland. The people whom we did not hear from, however, were the Garvaghy Road residents. Here is the reality. I appeal to Sinn Féin that, instead of running around trying to shore up the hardest possible position against compromise, instead of Sinn Féin and Breandán Mac Cionnaith, who does not even live in the area, running around talking up and creating absolute defiance of the law, that party should get off the stage and allow the residents in the area to be able to talk to local Orangemen and find a resolution through dialogue and compromise, because that is the way forward. That is the future. You are the past.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am a bit young to be "the past", but thanks very much for the lecture.

First of all, for clarity: the residents are absolutely in control of everything that happens on the Garvaghy Road. If you or any of your colleagues bothered to go down on to the Garvaghy Road and speak to the people in that community centre, you would understand exactly their position. Everybody who was on that stage was there at the wishes of the Garvaghy Road residents and nobody else. Nobody got to tell them, or dictate to them, who would be where or who would speak on their behalf. They absolutely dictated what would happen —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Right: that is a preamble. Come to a question.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— and rightly so, because they are the residents and the people whom we represent.

Just for clarity —

[Interruption.]

Thank you. I also want to say that I am very proud of my colleague Deirdre Hargey, and I will not have her shouted down by the Members behind you.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

OK. Can we have a question?

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am also very proud of our leader. You talk about her "prancing" down the road.

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

It is a question, Mrs Dillon, please.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

She did not prance down the road; she stood shoulder to shoulder with residents who asked her to be there.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. It is Question Time, Mrs Dillon. I have given you ample opportunity for your preamble. It has gone beyond that. Can we have the question, please?

[Interruption.]

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, an answer would be great. We certainly do not dance to the beat of anybody's drum. We stand shoulder to shoulder.

DUP members' approach to the rule of law is not so clear-cut when they are breaking the law themselves.

[Interruption.]

An opportunity to ask the question would be good. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

If you are so committed to respect for the law, do you now accept that DUP Ministers acted unlawfully and in breach of the ministerial pledge by withdrawing from the North/South Ministerial Council? If you feel so strongly about the law and do not agree with the opportunity for civil disobedience, outline why.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Sinn Féin needs to get real if the Member genuinely thinks that you have not done significant damage to the position of First Minister and these ministerial positions that, at their very heart, have to be about upholding the law. As I have said before, key to this is the fact that you cannot demand equality and then claim an exemption for yourselves, time and time again. The reality is that I have proven, by my track record, that I show respect, but I also demand respect. I am proud of who I am but I am also respectful of who other people are. I will say this very clearly: nobody is going to be treated like a second-class citizen just because they are asked to show a modicum of respect and tolerance. The reality is that, if we are to build the future for Northern Ireland that we want to see, it has to be about people coming together with tolerance and respect for each other and our differences.

What I heard on the Garvaghy Road was not from the residents. The Member said that there were plenty of residents there, but we have not seen them or heard from them because it has been so dominated by Sinn Féin representatives, Sinn Féin councillors, the First Minister, Breandán Mac Cionnaith and others. The reality is that Sinn Féin flooded the area for sheer electioneering purposes. I reached out to the First Minister and asked her to put out a statement to call for calm and to stand with me in calling people off the streets so that we could move forward together. The reality is that she chose to follow the law of the mob instead of the law of the land. She chose Sinn Féin politics over her responsibilities as First Minister, and that is shameful.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

T3. Dr Aiken asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how the deputy First Minister thinks that we will manage to make the Government work in the short time that is left in the mandate, given that what we have seen here today is a sterling example of how not to do it, and bearing in mind the real challenges, particularly around the Budget, which we have had no response on, and the fact that we are not delivering on anything, particularly the A5 or any infrastructure. (AQT 2653/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his important question. We face huge issues, and that is partly why I am deeply frustrated and why I feel angry about what we have seen over the past week. Yes, there will always be challenges and issues that we need to navigate. I have been out and about speaking to so many people who are genuinely appalled, and I think that the First Minister and Sinn Féin need a wake-up call if they think that their actions have not landed really, really badly with the vast majority of people. Nobody was asking the First Minister to embrace the decisions of the Parades Commission or the courts, but they were asking her to fulfil her responsibilities as First Minister. That must mean working together on core principles and values, and that must include upholding the rule of law. That is so basic to what we are doing. Supporting the police is so basic to what we are doing. We have big challenges ahead in trying to fight for a Budget for the people of Northern Ireland and in trying to drive forward transformation and progress. That is what I am prepared to do, and that is why I am in this post. That is responsible leadership, and I have been despairing at the recklessness and disregard shown by the First Minister to these institutions, these posts and our reputation. It has been absolutely appalling.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her comments. Deputy First Minister, you may or may not be aware that, particularly in the Republic of Ireland, there are real concerns about the delivery of services and what is going on. One of the comments that has been made is that the only thing that Sinn Féin is good for is blocking roads, be it the Garvaghy Road or the A5. Deputy First Minister, is there a method by which the Government can, for example, build roads rather than block them?

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. It is absolutely important. As I said, the application for the march was put in by the Portadown Orangemen, and they have the right to do so. It was not the DUP that put in that application. The courts supported the Parades Commission and that outcome. It is absolutely right that people should have their basic civil liberties and human rights upheld, and that is what my party has said and repeated time and time again. Here is the difficulty: there is a party that accepts the rule of law only when it goes in its favour. That party accepts the decision of a court only when it agrees with it. That is not equality. That is not the way that we need to do business.

As the Member rightly pointed out, we have huge issues to face. This is a time for responsible leadership, not rabble-rousing and blocking roads, and the vast majority of people out there get that. Michelle O'Neill could have put on record her opposition to the decision in a legal and lawful way. Instead, she chose the law of the mob and the law of disorder over the law of the land. That is not right.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Nuala McAllister, quickly.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

T4. Miss McAllister asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after noting that she has been working on the issue for years and has met the First Minister and deputy First Minister about it and the fact that more infant bodies have been found at the former mother-and-baby home site at Tuam, which has largely gone under the radar in the past week, what assurances they can give that the lessons learned from the excavation there can be applied in Northern Ireland for the new mother-and-baby homes inquiry, specifically in the case of Milltown cemetery, on which there is disagreement between the diocese of Down and Connor and campaigners, including herself, over the number of babies who are buried there and the history and security of the site. (AQT 2654/22-27)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Briefly, deputy First Minister.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her important question on that sensitive issue. I met the Member previously about the concerns, in particular, around the Milltown cemetery site. It is critical that we try to preserve what is there at the moment in order to make sure that full investigations can take place. What happened at Tuam and, indeed, at other sites is horrific. It is harrowing, and we must learn the lessons from that. There has been some discussion about what can be done through legislation to protect those sites pending further investigations. I am more than happy to meet the Member to discuss that in more detail and to get an update for her on those ongoing discussions, including those with officials, the diocese and Milltown cemetery.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you.

We move to questions to the Minister for the Economy. I will give Members a moment to change places.

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

1. Ms Sugden asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any steps she is taking to support Ulster University in avoiding compulsory redundancies. (AQO 4038/22-27)

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

13. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for the Economy, given their role in supporting economic growth and regional balance, to outline any work she is undertaking to minimise the impact of budget pressures on further education colleges and higher education institutions. (AQO 4050/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

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

I recognise the vital role that further education colleges and higher education institutions play in supporting our economy, developing skills and promoting regional balance.

Ulster University has commenced a process inviting applications under a voluntary redundancy scheme. I appreciate that it is a worrying and uncertain time for staff. My Department continues to engage with the university, and I encourage the university to continue its constructive engagement with trade unions. I hope that any compulsory redundancies will be avoided, as was the case in the further education sector two years ago.

Since taking up my role, I have sought to prioritise funding for skills, specifically for our further and higher education institutions, including successfully advocating for in-year funding for both sectors. I have allocated an additional £400,000 each to St Mary's University College and Stranmillis University College. I have increased the further education budget envelope each year to facilitate a 19·7% pay increase for lecturers over the past three years in recognition of their valued contribution to upskilling across the region. I strongly support Ulster University's delivery of higher education in Derry, Belfast and Coleraine, which contributes to regional balance. Since the return of the Executive, the university has reported an approximate increase in student numbers of 22% at Magee and 12% at Coleraine.

Whilst I remain committed to securing a sustainable future for our further and higher education sectors, both sectors are facing pressures as a result of operating within contingency funding allocations, along with an inescapable funding gap. Along with my Executive colleagues, I have consistently highlighted the unsustainable nature of current funding arrangements and continue to press the British Government for a fair and sustainable funding settlement that protects public services and supports economic development, including in further and higher education.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Both universities have been highly critical of the current funding model, including minimal inflationary rises. Minister, will you take responsibility for the inevitable outcome that the redundancies will seemingly have? How will we support universities so that they do have a sustainable future and will not have to consider more job losses?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. I am on record as saying that I could not sign up to the Executive Budget that was on the table because it would have put our further and higher education institutions, in particular, in significant difficulty and limit the opportunity for wider economic development. I, along with my Executive colleagues, continue to make the case that we need to have a fair funding settlement and that we need to be able to invest in our public services, including our further and higher education institutions. I recognise the pressures that both are under. I recognise that our universities have faced pretty much flat-cash budget settlements for the past number of years and that that has had an impact. I will be making the case for them to my Executive colleagues. My paper on higher education funding was discussed at the Executive. I tabled it to make my Executive colleagues aware of the significant pressures that our higher education institutions are under. We all need to continue the work of trying to get a better Budget settlement.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, from the recent Brain Gain research, there are a number of suggestions. How do you intend to use that research to support our universities' sustainability?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. The Brain Gain research has provided us with an important evidence base for how we can sustain our universities into the future. It challenges what has been the mainstream narrative for quite some time, which is that there has been a brain drain, by showing that the number of students leaving here is fairly in line with numbers elsewhere and is significantly lower than the number in some regions of Britain. It is therefore important that we understand and consider the evidence base that we have and that we work with others on how we can attract more students to come and study here. I am keen to work with our universities, employers and agencies such as Tourism NI to see how we can present the North as an attractive place in which to study, build a career and live. The research also highlights how we have work to do to strengthen our jobs market. We particularly need to strengthen links between higher education and the labour market so that the skills coming out of our institutions align with the needs of the economy. There is therefore broader work to be done, but a significant opportunity exists for us here.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Minister, communication between stakeholders and Departments is always key. Will you outline further what communication and engagement have been like with key stakeholders in our further and higher education sector? It is really important that, while we are fighting for a fairer settlement from the UK Government, we listen to stakeholders' suggestions about the new ways, on which we might model our further and higher education system.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. I agree with her. I have had significant engagement with representatives from our universities and our further education colleges, at both principal and board level, and with the trade unions that represent further and higher education staff. In some respects, we have the shared goal of arguing for additional investment, so it is important that we take on board their experience. We will take different positions on how to achieve certain outcomes, and that is also fine. Together, however, we can make a really compelling case for why we need to see investment in our public services, and in our further and higher education institutions in particular. It is because of the really important role that they play not only in developing our economy but in giving people opportunities and improving lives.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Given the announcement of £9·3 million in funding for Ulster University, which is made up of £7 million, £1·5 million and £800,000 for projects associated with the university, can the Minister clarify how much of that funding her Department has earmarked for Magee and how much, if any, it has earmarked for Coleraine? Project funding may not be available to meet staffing costs, so what direct support is she offering the university across its three campuses?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I do not have the specific figures in front of me to which the Member refers — I think that they come from a response to a question for written answer — but I am happy to correspond with him further. It goes back to my point about how we need to see investment in our further and higher education institutions in general in order for them to be able to deliver and to ensure that they are rightsized to meet the needs of the student population and to continue the important work that they do. That is why it is important that we continue the negotiations with the British Government and establish a shared position across not just the Executive but the Assembly on the need for proper and fair funding for this place.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, such redundancies do not happen in isolation. In your answers, you said that the absence of a Budget is making the situation even more difficult. While we are supposed to be expanding Magee to 10,000 students, Ulster University is simultaneously being forced to cut jobs. How can those two things possibly be reconciled? What assurances can you give that the north-west will not pay the price not only for the financial crisis in Ulster University but for the financial crisis here owing to the lack of a Budget?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. I reflect, as would, I am sure, our universities, that it is not a problem of just this year but one that has grown over a number of years, because we have not seen the type of investment that we need in our public services in general. Particularly in our further and higher education institutions, we have seen a kind of flat-cash settlement over a number of years. That creates challenges when there are the types of inflation uplifts that we have seen over recent years. That is a particular problem right now when it comes to the contingency allocations that our institutions are trying to work to. That is why we need to get a Budget settlement.

We have seen increased numbers at Magee. We are likely to see an additional increase in this academic year. We await the final numbers in respect of that. We have a focus on expanding the number of students. A plan on how we can do that is in place, and we continue to work to that plan. I am committed to delivering against that, as are, I think, the wider Executive.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

2. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister for the Economy for an assessment of the ability of the Further Education: Fit for the Future programme to support the development of the arts sector. (AQO 4039/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I recognise the important contribution that the arts and creative sectors make to our society, culture and economy and the significant role that is played by further education colleges in arts and creative education. Learners who attend our further education colleges can study traditional disciplines, such as fine art, ceramics, textiles, photography, music and performing arts, alongside those in rapidly developing areas, such as film and TV, animation, visual effects, games development, virtual production and digital content. The offer extends from level 2 traineeships and level 3 vocational programmes to HNCs, HNDs, foundation degrees and level 6 qualifications, and it provides opportunities for learners to progress into higher-level education and creative industries.

The Further Education: Fit for the Future programme is designed to enable an FE sector that is responsive to the needs of learners, employers and the wider economy. A key element is the development of a curriculum framework to help shape future curriculum planning across the sector, including supporting the arts and creative industries by the provision of industry-relevant curriculum and qualifications.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister. You will be aware that, a few weeks ago, a lot of arts sector representatives were at Stormont. Amongst their asks was that there would be the continued development of people in that sector. Your initial response outlined quite a number of areas in which people can get involved. Many others and I have been contacted by lecturers in FE colleges, particularly those from Belfast Met, who say that arts programmes are being cut. That does not sit right. How do you equate courses being cut with saying that we need to continue to build our art sector? What are you doing in your Department to make sure that those courses are sustained?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. Part of it potentially relates to our previous conversation about the contingency allocations that our further education colleges are working to this year in the absence of a Budget. Certainly, my hope is that we will have a better Budget settlement than that which was on the table previously and that we will be in the position to uplift the allocations.

The work on the Further Education: Fit for the Future programme, particularly that on the curriculum framework, is not about telling colleges which courses they need to provide but about providing a framework within which they can work.

That is very much about aligning with the needs of the economy, as the Member reflected. Creative industries comprise one of our priority sectors, so it is important that we have people coming out with the skills that businesses and the broader sector need. The work is designed to support that outcome. If she wants to, I would be happy for the Member to correspond with me about the specific concerns that have been raised with her, so that we can investigate them with officials in the colleges.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister provide an update on the Fit for the Future programme, le do thoil?

[Translation: please?]

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. The programme was launched, I think, in April. It is about strengthening the further education sector and doing exactly what the title says: making sure that it is fit for learners, communities and the broader economy in the future. Our colleges are a really important part of our skills ecosystem, which constantly changes, and our colleges constantly evolve their programmes to keep up with that, particularly with newer economies such as the green economy and the digital economy. They also play a really important role in supporting young people with special educational needs. We face significant challenges across a number of areas, including the number of young people with additional educational needs and the proportion of our population that is economically inactive, as it is called, because of the barriers that are faced. Our colleges therefore play a really important role not only in education but in social inclusion, so it is important that they are structured, funded and focused in the right way to deliver against the programme's objectives, which are about having real impact for learners, supporting employers and supporting the broader economy.

There are four strands of work to the programme. As I mentioned, part of it is about developing a curriculum framework to introduce a new approach to how we measure performance, review and fund further education and consider how we can get greater collaboration across our colleges. The work is ongoing. We are at the early stages of it, but it will roll out over the next months.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

In light of the further education colleges having to cut places and courses and the impact of that on sectors such as the arts, does the Minister regret supporting John O'Dowd's draft Budget earlier this year? Further to that, does the Minister agree that it is important to make clear to the groups that blame their current financial pressures on the operation of the contingency Budget that, if they had adopted the original draft Budget, those pressures would be worse now?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. We would all like to have been able to agree a three-year Budget. It would have put us in a much stronger position from a strategic perspective for planning how we deliver across all our objectives, particularly our Programme for Government and Executive commitments. Unfortunately, when we drilled into the detail of what that would mean, it became apparent to me that the challenges that my Department faced, particularly across further and higher education, could not be met by what was on the table. That is the position that the Executive collectively came to. It is right that we continue to argue for a proper Budget settlement. We have made progress. The British Government have acknowledged that we require additional funding. They have put additional funding on the table, but it has not gone far enough yet. It is important that we speak with one voice in continuing to make the case for a proper and fair Budget settlement, not just as an Executive but collectively as an Assembly.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Our third-level institutions have an admirable focus on finding the next Allen McClay or Frank Pantridge. Does the Minister detect the same enthusiasm to unearth the next Liam Neeson or Seamus Heaney?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member. We have performed really well in the creative industries, particularly the screen industries, and our colleges and universities have been key to our being able to do so. However, it is important that we continue to support the sectors and make sure that the skills provision meets the needs of the businesses and wider sectors. That is where the work of the Fit for the Future programme is really important, as is making sure that our universities and colleges are properly funded. My own perspective is that we need to make sure that we have appropriate programmes and provision in relation to our arts sector in the same way as we do for our STEM sector. A lot of focus is, rightly, on our STEM sector, but the type of critical thinking and analysis skills that people gain from arts courses are really important and are very often the types of skills that are in demand from business, so it is important that we make sure that we have a very rounded programme of skills provision.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any planning under way for the 2027 Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. (AQO 4040/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I am delighted that the fleadh will return to Belfast in 2027, providing an important opportunity to attract new audiences and further enhance the tourism and economic benefits delivered to communities and businesses across the North. On 21 September, alongside Minister Kimmins and Belfast City Council Lord Mayor Róis-Máire Donnelly, I met key partners involved in delivering the fleadh 2026 to reflect on the event's success and look ahead to its return. There was a shared ambition to build on this year's achievement and make the 2027 fleadh even bigger and better.

Planning is already under way. Belfast City Council, as the lead delivery partner, is working closely with Comhaltas, Tourism NI and industry stakeholders to develop plans for 2027. That includes reviewing lessons learned from the 2026 event and drawing on insights from visitor behaviour, spending patterns and business feedback to enhance the visitor experience and maximise the long-term tourism legacy.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

[Translation: I thank the Minister.]

Of course, as well as Fleadh Cheoil na nÉireann, we also had Féile, which attracted tens of thousands of visitors to dozens of events ranging from political debates, book launches and history tours to big concerts. Among the best concerts was that of Young Spencer from the Shankill, who supported Kneecap in their great gig. When will the impact report of Féile 2026 be available?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. Féile has certainly grown into one of the largest community arts and cultural festivals across these islands. It attracts audiences from across Ireland and beyond. Responsibility for evaluating the economic impact of the festival rests primarily with the organisers and funding partners, although it is recognised that the event generates significant economic activity for Belfast and the wider region. I understand that the evaluation for this year's Féile will be completed early in the new year.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Does the Minister agree that the generosity displayed by unionists during the fleadh in Belfast this summer stands in stark contrast to the lawbreakers of Sinn Féin, whose intolerance of unionist culture is damaging community relations in Portadown?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. The fleadh showed the best of us. It was an inclusive and positive event that attracted hundreds of thousands of people to Belfast. Part of the reason for that was the involvement of people from across all of our communities. That is something to be welcomed and built on.

Let us be very clear: what is damaging community relations in Portadown is the desire to force an unwanted sectarian march through a community that does not want it. The Secretary of State needs to intervene and remove the threat of that unwanted march being forced through that community. The issue has been settled for the past 28 years. Why is it being rehashed now? There are clearly political agendas at play.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

North Down is the home of the fleadh host branch Ards Comhaltas Ceoltóiri Éireann (CCÉ). We had an incredible fleadh fringe event alongside the pipe band championships. Minister, how are you engaging with councils and local businesses outside Belfast to bring the maximum economic benefit of next year's fleadh?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. My Department and Tourism NI have a particular focus on that. While we want everyone to experience the fleadh in Belfast, there is so much on offer across our region, and we want to encourage people to stay a while and experience what else is on offer. We — Tourism NI in particular — are actively working on that and on how we can build on this year's experience and understand visitor behaviours. Straight off the back of this year's fleadh ending, we were straight in the market with promotion and putting marketing material on social media to encourage people to book for next year. I am sure that we will have bigger numbers next year and that our offering will be bigger and better.

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

Building on the previous question, I ask the Minister whether there is an intention to draw together similar types of packages. For example, in Downpatrick, in my constituency, we have the home of St Patrick, which would be of great interest to those who visit for the fleadh. Will the Minister's Department undertake assessments to try to connect those packages and share the economic benefit around all areas?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for that question. I encourage him to engage with Tourism NI on that, because planning is under way on how to maximise the benefit of the fleadh and ensure that offerings are available. Some of that happens organically, but, where councils can have input and want to be involved, we should encourage that. I am happy to take that on board, and I encourage the Member to also engage on it.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

4. Mr Chambers asked the Minister for the Economy whether it is still a priority of her Department to encourage and facilitate restoration of a direct air link between Belfast and a major airline hub in the United States of America. (AQO 4041/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Restoring a direct air service between Belfast and a major United States hub remains an important objective for my Department. The North continues to experience connectivity challenges arising from competition from other regions and from our geographic location and consequential reliance on air travel to access critical markets. Research identifies direct access to the US East Coast as one of our most significant connectivity gaps and highlights the importance of direct transatlantic connectivity in supporting inward investment, international trade, business travel and tourism. My officials continue to engage with Belfast International Airport and industry stakeholders on potential transatlantic connection opportunities. While the aviation sector currently operates in a very challenging environment, with airlines facing increased costs when making network and route planning decisions, we remain committed to working with industry partners to identify credible opportunities. Any future intervention by my Department must be evidence-based, affordable, compliant with subsidy control and, of course, represent value for money. A primary objective will be to support routes that are capable of becoming commercially sustainable over the longer term.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

I used that service quite frequently when Continental Airlines and United Airlines operated it, and there were never any empty seats in either direction. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the lack of a direct link is an important missing piece of the local economy jigsaw. Is the Minister hopeful that there will be positive developments in the near future on a direct link being restored?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. That issue is raised with me frequently and consistently, particularly when engaging in North America. It would be of huge benefit to have a route re-established. The airport leads on those discussions in the first instance, but my Department is happy to support the continuing conversations. Some things will be commercially sensitive, but I have met the leadership team of Belfast International Airport to discuss potential opportunities, and officials continue to work with the airport to see how we can best support it.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

As the Minister is aware, the Derry to Dublin route is critical to promoting and supporting a thriving all-Ireland economy. Will she provide an update on the British Government's decision to apply air passenger duty (APD) to the Derry to Dublin route?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. Members will be aware that the Derry to Dublin air service was a New Decade, New Approach commitment and that both Governments committed to supporting its development. Unfortunately, the British Government have doubled down on their position in refusing to exempt the route from air passenger duty. I have engaged with the Secretary of State for Transport on a number of occasions. I am concerned about the application of APD to the route, which will be applied only to the Derry to Dublin leg of the route and not the other way round. My understanding is that the Irish Government intend to treat it as a public service obligation (PSO). The argument that I have made to the British Government is that that is what it is intended to be, exactly like the Derry to Heathrow route, which is a PSO. APD will add cost to that leg of the route. In my view, APD, particularly short-haul APD, on an island is an unfair tax. That is why we continue to make the case to the British Government for its removal.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

According to the Minister's departmental business plan, she was meant to have produced an aviation strategy for Northern Ireland over a year ago. If the Minister spent less time blocking roads and breaking the law, would she be able to get on with doing her actual job as Minister for the Economy?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

It is funny that the Member seems not to have taken on board the number of occasions on which it has been explained why there has been a delay with the aviation policy or the details of the work that my Department was required to do last year because of decisions taken by the British Government. He is also aware that we intend to publish the aviation policy later this autumn. Key components of the policy include things such as a new air route development scheme, but, obviously, those depend on securing a satisfactory Budget settlement. I encourage the Member, along with his party, to continue to play a part in the efforts that we are making collectively for a better Budget settlement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move now to topical questions.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T1. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister for the Economy, given that, tomorrow, the Irish Government will set out their Budget for the next year, with billions of euros of additional investment planned for public services, infrastructure and competitiveness, while we are more than six months into the financial year and the Executive cannot agree a Budget, what assessments she has made of the damage that the continued uncertainty is doing to business confidence and our economic competitiveness. (AQT 2661/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. I reiterate the point that I have made on a number of occasions: the absence of a fair and proper Budget settlement does damage not just to our public services but to our efforts in respect of economic development. In an earlier response, I mentioned the reason that I was unable to support the Budget that was on the table: it was partly because of the lack of investment in our further and higher education institutions, but it was also because of the inability for us to fund Invest NI to do the important work of economic development. The absence of a Budget is far from an ideal place for us to be in. It is damaging that we are not able to properly fund our public services, but that damage is being caused by us not being appropriately funded according to our level of need. I appeal, as I have done already, for a collective voice across not just the Executive but the Assembly in making the case for us to be properly funded so that we can deliver public services and promote the development of our economy.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The vacuum is causing severe strain on businesses, colleges and organisations across the economy. They are being asked to plan, invest and create jobs without any certainty of what funding is available for next year.

Minister, do you accept that an Executive who cannot agree their own Budget are making it harder for the economy to compete for investment for skills and jobs with a Government across the border who are already planning for next year?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. I do not disagree with her about the impact that the Budget situation is having.

The point that I would make is that agreeing a Budget that is inadequate and forcing it on our public services will damage those services. That is why we have engaged in negotiations with the British Government and why we continue to engage.

The British Government have accepted our point about needing additional funding. They have put additional funding on the table, but it does not go far enough. It will not allow us to deliver public services in the way in which we need to be able to, and it certainly will not allow us to undertake the type of economic development that we are capable of doing. The work that we are doing is delivering economic benefits. Even in the absence of a Budget, we are outperforming Britain on economic growth and on a number of other economic measures. I argue that we need to be funded properly so that we can unleash our potential, and we have significant potential to unleash.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

T2. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the introduction of the domestic abuse safe leave regulations. (AQT 2662/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. The Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act 2022 is important legislation that was passed in the previous mandate, and I remain committed to laying the regulations to introduce paid domestic abuse safe leave before the end of this mandate. The 2022 Act will provide employees and workers who are the victims of domestic abuse with 10 days' paid safe leave in each leave year. That right to leave will be available from the first day of employment. My officials are working through the remaining technical and legal issues. The aim is to finalise the draft regulations by the end of October to allow time for the necessary Assembly procedures and Committee scrutiny. Detailed guidance is being developed alongside the regulations so that employers and those who need to use the entitlement have the clear, practical and sensitive information that they need before they come into operation. We are working with a group of stakeholders to develop that guidance so that it is practical for those who will need it.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat

[Translation: Thank you]

, Minister. That is good news. I have been working with a group of people for a long time, and they are now impoverished owing to having had to flee their homes as a result of violence.

On a separate issue, next week is, as you will be aware, Baby Loss Awareness Week: do you have an update on an overview of the impact that paid miscarriage leave has had since it came into effect in April?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. As we mark Baby Loss Awareness Week, I acknowledge the devastating impact that miscarriage can have on parents and families. We are now the only region in these islands providing paid bereavement leave for miscarriage. The new regulations have been in place since 6 April. Since then, eligible employees and their partners experiencing a miscarriage before 24 weeks have been entitled to two weeks' statutory parental bereavement leave and pay, and the pay is available from the first day of employment.

HMRC has recorded 151 claims under the enhanced arrangements, around three quarters of which relate to miscarriage. It is too early to provide a full evaluation, but the introduction of the entitlement has been successful, in that no operational issues have been identified. It is clear that the scheme has given bereaved parents protected time to grieve when they need it most. I have heard testimonies from some organisations that support those affected by baby loss and pregnancy loss about the significant difference that the scheme is making to those who use their services.