Official Report: Tuesday 20 October 2026

Mr Gildernew: Éirím lena chur in iúl an imní mhór atá orainn faoi na ciorruithe ar BBC a bhfuil iomrá leo anseo sa Tuaisceart. Tá imní mhór orainn faoin tionchar a d'fhéadfadh bheith acu ar BBC Gaeilge agus ar chláir Ghaeilge go háirithe. Bainfear an bonn dár dtionscail áitiúla chruthaitheachta leis na ciorruithe ar léiriúchán na n-ealaíon agus na siamsaíochta, cuirfear poist i mbaol agus laghdófar ar na deiseanna atá ag daoine éirimiúla áitiúil a gcuid oibre a fhorbairt agus a thaispeáint. Tá daoine oilte a bhfuil taithí, ciall don chruthaitheacht agus eolas acu ar ár bpobail taobh thiar de na cláir sin, agus cuidíonn siad lenár scéalta a chur in iúl don lucht féachana. Bheadh daor orainn dá gcaillfimis an saineolas sin, ní bheadh ann ach tuí na háithe a chur ar an mhuilean.

Ós rud é gur craoltóir seirbhíse poiblí é BBC, tá freagracht orthu guth a thabhairt do na daoine, an cultúr agus na pobail a bhfreastalaíonn siad orthu. D'fhéadfadh na ciorruithe sin dochar a dhéanamh do phoist áitiúla, do thionscail chruthaitheachta agus d'ionadaíocht chultúrtha. Ní mhaolófar an dochar sin lena rá gurb é an plána mín atá á chur ar an tseirbhís.

Tá imní faoi leith orm faoi thionchar na gciorruithe sin ar an tsoláthar don Ghaeilge. Tá pobal na Gaeilge anseo ag fás, agus ba cheart aitheantas agus tacaíocht a thabhairt don fhás sin, in áit an smior chailleach a bhaint as le ciorruithe. An áit a mbíonn craoltóireacht, bíonn deis an teanga a chluinstin agus a úsáid sa ghnáthshaol ag an té atá líofa, ag an té atá ag foghlaim agus ag an teaghlach atá ag tógáil páistí trí Ghaeilge. Cuireann sí saibhreas na teanga agus an chultúir roimh lucht mór féachana fosta.

Cuirfidh Sinn Féin in éadan iarracht ar bith an soláthar sin a lagú. Tá freagraí soiléire uainn maidir leis na himpleachtaí a bheidh ann don fhoireann agus don mhaoiniú, agus do chláir bheo agus rialta. Tá infheistíocht leanúnach agus tiomantas soiléir do bhuaine na dtionscal cruthaitheachta agus na seirbhísí Gaeilge de dhíth.

Mr Clarke: As the court case regarding the decision of the Chief Constable and Secretary of State to take the course of action that they did is ongoing in the High Court, I will be careful to try not to say anything that would prejudice the outcome. However, when listening to the case in the court, it is hard not to notice what the Chief Constable has put forward as evidence. He talks about the potential of guns coming on to our streets from dissident republicans. That poses questions. First, if the Chief Constable has knowledge about those groups and individuals having access to guns, why did the police not go after the guns beforehand? If they knew that the guns were moved to the area, why were they not intercepted before they were moved into the Garvaghy Road area? Since the Chief Constable and Secretary of State capitulated to the lawlessness of those on the Benches opposite, why did they not go in afterwards? Those are three fundamental questions about the policing operation on the Garvaghy Road that remain unanswered. Indeed, we should all rightly be concerned that the current Chief Constable has done little to nothing to bring to an end the danger that the wider public of Northern Ireland faces from dissident republicans.

My colleagues on the Policing Board and I will continue to explore that in the days and weeks in front of us. It is clear — do not let this be lost on anyone — that the parade was lawful and that the Chief Constable and Secretary of State capitulated to lawbreakers and have taken little to no action. Many people have asked, on the airwaves, why the police did not intercept and stop people making their way to the parade. That is a reasonable question that has not been answered. I am clear: we will pursue the matter to every degree that we can to get the answers to the questions that remain unanswered regarding the actions of the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable should have afforded people the lawful right to which they are entitled rather than hiding behind some dissident threat. He needs to come down very hard on that.

Mrs Guy: Last Saturday morning was time well spent for me. I joined parents and carers at a wellness and information session organised by Sensability, which is a Lisburn-based group that supports adults with severe learning difficulties. A number of things struck me about the event. The first was how much care and understanding had gone into creating an event that genuinely met the needs of families. Karen and Vivien, who lead Sensability, are parents of young people with complex needs. They understand what families need, which is support, advice, time to breathe and the opportunity to connect with people who truly understand their lives.

For the young people in attendance, the session was a chance to have fun, spend time with friends and be themselves, while surrounded by carers who see them as the unique individuals they are. Alma from Caleb's Cause was also there, listening to parents and sharing vital information about navigating the transition to adulthood. She gave families a two-page checklist of things that they need to know and plan for. For many, much of that information was brand new, and that fact really stayed with me. The checklist was extensive and, frankly, intimidating, but it was also frustratingly familiar. Once again, parents were filling gaps in a system that should provide clear and accessible information and support. Those families already carry a huge amount; they should not have to rely on another parent who is fighting their way through the system to tell them what help exists, what they are entitled to and what they need to do next. One simple request that I heard was for a one-stop shop for trusted and reliable information — somewhere that families could go and know that they would get the right information at the right time. The Caleb's Cause website or a Saturday morning information session is not where families should have to find out what support is available for them or what they should have to coordinate on behalf of their family member in the absence of coherent care plans in Northern Ireland. We need our public services to join the dots, provide that information clearly and make sure that families are supported through every stage of their child's life.

Parents such as those whom I met on Saturday should not have to plug the gaps in the system. They deserve a system that is joined up and that works for them. Again, I thank the incredible teams at Sensability, Live Life Well-Being Centre and Caleb's Cause for the genuinely inspiring and impactful work that they do.

Ms Hunter: I will speak about the horrific issue that plagues our society in Northern Ireland: domestic violence. Home is a place that should feel safe, but for many victims of domestic violence, it is a place in which they have to be hypervigilant. Home should be the place where everyone feels safe. It should be somewhere where we can close our door, relax and feel at peace. Unfortunately, however, the reality for many across Northern Ireland is that they live in fear in their home.

This week is Domestic Abuse Awareness Week, but for those experiencing abuse it is something that they live with every day. A member of our SDLP women's group recently shared her experience with me. She said that all that she ever wanted was to feel at peace in her home. That is something that many of us take for granted, but it is something that had been taken away from her. Domestic abuse is not always physical violence. It can be coercive control, manipulation and so much more. It can be someone slowly taking away another person's independence, confidence and sense of safety. Thankfully, she eventually made the difficult decision to leave, but leaving did not mean that the abuse stopped. It followed her, as it does many women and victims. She spoke about the difference that Women's Aid made to her life and about the support that she had received during what was one of the most difficult times of her life.

Her story is a reminder of the importance of organisations such as Women's Aid but also of the enormous challenges facing women across the North who escape abusive relationships. Too often, we hear about domestic abuse and the one question that is asked is this: why didn't she leave? We should, however, be asking a different question: what stopped her leaving? Sadly, in the current climate, the answer for many women is financial insecurity. When rents are rising, childcare costs are through the roof and families are struggling to make ends meet, leaving an abusive relationship could mean facing even more poverty or even homelessness. How can we expect a woman to leave when she cannot afford to keep a roof over her and her children's heads? No woman should be forced to remain in an abusive relationship that she literally cannot afford to leave.

I welcome the fact that the House has introduced the ending violence against women and girls strategy, which recognises the importance of tackling the issue, but there are serious questions to be asked about how we measure its success. Without clear, measurable outcomes and proper data collection, how can we know whether the strategy is making a difference to the lives of women across the North? How do we know that it is making women feel safer in their own home? Publishing a strategy is one thing, but delivering real change for women who are experiencing abuse is another. Home is a place where everyone should feel safe. It should be somewhere where children can grow up without fear and somewhere where women can live without being subjected to intimidation and control.

All that the woman who shared her story with me ever wanted was peace in her home. That is not an unreasonable expectation. It is something that every person deserves, and it is something that we in the House should be doing everything within our gift to guarantee.

Ms Finnegan: I congratulate Crossmaglen Rangers on another fantastic county final victory and for bringing the Gerry Fegan Cup back to Crossmaglen. As a proud Crossmaglen woman, I know how much the victory means to our community. Cross Rangers are a huge part of the fabric of our town, with generations of families having played their part in the club's success. The latest victory is a credit to the players, management and everyone behind the scenes who have worked so hard throughout the year.

The title was dedicated to Crossmaglen's much-loved and much-missed teammate Stringer: Caolan Finnegan. It is a fitting tribute to Caolan, who meant so much to his teammates, the club and the entire community. He was surely in the Athletic Grounds on Sunday in spirit. I have no doubt that Stringer, Margaret McConville and all the other great people whom the club have lost were very much in the thoughts of everyone as they celebrated the victory. They were looking down over the boys, cheering them on.

Crossmaglen Rangers have given our community so many proud days over the years, and this is another one to remember. Comhghairdeas libh agus ádh mór

for the upcoming match against the Cavan champions, Gowna, in a few weeks' time.

Mr T Buchanan: The recent revelations from the Omagh bomb inquiry that the Irish Army received information on the evening of 14 August 1998 of a car bomb to be transported to Omagh the following day yet deliberately failed to pass that information to the police not only show a blatant dereliction of duty but reinforce the truth about collusion between the Republic of Ireland and terrorist organisations. That has caused further pain and hurt to the Omagh families. The evidence raises serious questions about what the Irish authorities knew before the attack, why the information was not passed to the RUC and whether the bomb could have been averted, saving the lives of 29 people and two unborn children alongside preventing injuries to the many people who carry the scars of that terrible atrocity to this day.

For many years, the finger of blame was pointed at the RUC for not acting quickly enough, yet the truth has now been well and truly revealed: the Irish Army, on receiving a warning of a car bomb heading for Omagh some 24 hours before the explosion, did absolutely nothing about it but allowed it to pass through their territory into Northern Ireland and on to Omagh with the full knowledge that there would be only one outcome: murder, bloodshed, devastation and anarchy. Yet, did they care? Of course not. If they had cared, they would have passed on that information. That clearly points to collusion between the perpetrators and the Republic's authorities, with the Dublin Government turning a blind eye to it.

The Dublin Government's lack of serious cooperation over the past 28 years is further crucial evidence that the Republic did absolutely nothing to interrupt or stop the bombing mission bound for Omagh on that fateful afternoon, yet many of our people today still carry the scars from that blatant neglect by the Dublin Government, who have done all in their power over these years to cover up their failings. It is now time for the Dublin Government to stand up and be counted for the years of collusion and harbouring republican terrorists after they had carried out their dastardly deeds of murder and bloodshed throughout our communities. Their silence and lack of cooperation has been deplorable while our people suffer and seek justice, and their hands drip with the blood of many innocent people from Northern Ireland. They refused to hand over terrorists from the Sinn Féin/IRA murder machine whom they provided safe hiding places for.

Today, I call for a full public inquiry into the Republic of Ireland's handling of the warning received and the circumstances surrounding the actions —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr T Buchanan: — of the Irish Army, which allowed that devastation to take place.

Mr Boggs: I quote:

The situation facing staff and patients alike at Altnagelvin A&E has been raised repeatedly in the Chamber, but we cannot overemphasise just how much we need to see action. Each week without fail and almost each day, I am contacted by patients or, more often than not, their families, who do not know where else to turn but to speak to their local elected representative. I know that all Members of the Assembly who cover the Western Trust area have the same story to tell, and nearly every message includes a line that I know to be true: "I know that the staff are doing their best". That could not be any truer, and it is imperative when discussing the issues that we recognise the invaluable role and dedication of the staff, who are doing everything that they can to make patients comfortable and have them treated as soon as possible.

In recent weeks, I have heard of very unwell patients in their 90s sitting waiting, some for days, to be treated. I have listened to their loved ones, at times in tears, because they feel helpless to the person whom they love. I know that situation because I too have experienced it with an elderly loved one, and it is not acceptable. I have listened to the staff who are running on empty, burned out and in need of urgent support. Last week, the Health Minister visited Altnagelvin to meet the staff and to see the current emergency department (ED). I am sure that he was left in absolutely no doubt that the facility is not fit for purpose. When a facility that is designed to treat 35,000 patients a year is treating somewhere in the region of 80,000 patients, little more argument is needed as to how important it is for a new ED to be made a reality as soon as possible.

I welcome the Minister's comments that a new ED at Altnagelvin will be incredibly high on his Department's project list when the Budget becomes available. Each of us in the Chamber and people outside will know just how dire the financial situation is, but the focus on the project cannot be lost. Therefore, I make a direct plea to the British Secretary of State, who, at present, is in negotiations with the Executive: can you see just how much our public services need to be put on a sustainable footing? We need to have sufficient funding to be able to invest in and transform public services. It is not about getting anything over and above what we need; it is about being able to deliver the services that people deserve.

The British Secretary of State talks about the Executive being financially irresponsible. I implore him to assess how irresponsible it is for him to leave the Executive in a position where they cannot fund vital public services such as this one. With one voice, all Members across the constituencies covered by the Western Trust must advocate for the ED to be upgraded as soon as possible, because people have waited long enough. Patients and their families have waited long enough.

Ms Brownlee: This morning I highlight the important case for introducing newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in Northern Ireland. SMA is a rare inherited condition that affects the nerves that control muscle movement. It can cause progressive muscle weakness and, in its most severe forms, can affect a baby's ability to sit, swallow or breathe. The challenge is that the symptoms may not be apparent at birth but damage can begin early. Treatment can improve outcomes and identify the condition before symptoms develop, which makes a critical difference. Newborn screening offers a way to identify affected babies promptly.

Northern Ireland already offers a heel-prick blood test to check for a number of serious conditions. The question now is whether SMA can be added to that test, with the right clinical pathways in place to confirm a diagnosis and provide that timely specialist care. There is a growing difference across the United Kingdom. Scotland began screening in March, and, this month, England began a phased service evaluation. The Republic of Ireland has also begun screening through its newborn blood spot programme. Northern Ireland has not yet started such an evaluation. That means that where a baby is born can affect whether SMA is identified through the newborn screening programme.

I welcome the work of Spinal Muscular Atrophy UK, Muscular Dystrophy UK and Novartis UK to bring the issue to the Assembly's attention. Their drop-in session is on Monday 2 November in room 115, where they will set out the case for screening and give Members the opportunity to hear more. I encourage all colleagues to attend the session and to engage with the clinicians and campaigners in order to better understand the opportunities for improved outcomes for patients in Northern Ireland. I also call on the Health Minister to work with the relevant experts and screening bodies in order to assess how newborn screening for SMA can be introduced here, including the evidence, the cost and the care pathways that are required.

Like those of many others here, my office has received many emails on this important issue. Every family deserves the chance of early diagnosis and timely treatment for their child, wherever they live in the UK. I hope that we can bring the issue forward and make a real difference for babies and families in Northern Ireland.

Mr Gaston: Nineteen years ago today, Paul Quinn, a 21-year-old man, was beaten to death with iron and nail-studded bars that broke every major bone in his body. The Independent Monitoring Commission found that the Provisional IRA was responsible for his murder. Eleven years ago today, the Government published a security assessment that found that the Provisional IRA retained an army council that oversaw the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin with an overarching strategy. The assessment stated that it retained "'departments' with specific responsibilities" and that it still had weapons that had not been decommissioned. That is the nature of the party that holds the First Minister post and with which those who sit on the Executive associate themselves. It is not nice to think of a 21-year-old beaten to death by the paramilitary wing of a party in the Northern Ireland Government.

Since the illegal protest against the legal Drumcree parade, nationalists across the House have claimed repeatedly that what they were involved in was some sort of non-violent resistance. That fairy tale exploded in the High Court yesterday. We now know that republicans had firearms. We now know that there was a belief among the police that they would shoot officers who dared to move in and do their job and enforce the law. We now know that petrol bombs were ready to be deployed against the police had they gone in. Most tellingly for the House, we now know that the police were actively considering the feelings of the Provisional IRA in how to police that parade.

To some Members I say this: when you took to the street and stood beside the bomber Breandán Mac Cionnaith, the new chief constable of the Garvaghy Road, and when you linked arms with people such as the Provisional IRA's chief of staff, Martin Lynch, and when you engaged with those people, you were not involved in a modern-day recreation of Martin Luther King in 1960s America. No, everyone who stood on that road, whether they were aware of it or not, did so in the shadow of gunmen. Do not tell me that that represents progress or is some sort of by-product of peace. Armed men in the background, police weighing up their reaction and politicians calling it "non-violent resistance": welcome to Northern Ireland in 2026. Is that what this place has to offer?

Mr Dunne: I rise to pay tribute to the life of Mr Terry Harryman, who, sadly, recently passed away. Terry was a true sporting icon who brought great pride to Bangor, north Down and, indeed, Northern Ireland through a remarkable rallying career spanning more than five decades. He was one of the finest co-drivers of his generation, navigating for some of the biggest names in rallying, including Ari Vatanen, Paddy Hopkirk, Michele Mouton, Malcolm Wilson and Jimmy McRae. His partnership with Ari Vatanen was particularly successful, bringing his career to great heights and success across the world, securing six World Rally Championship victories and nine podium finishes, including wins at some of the most iconic rallies in the world, including in the Safari, Finland, Monte Carlo and RAC rallies. Terry even helped Michele Mouton to win the 1986 German rally championship and enjoyed considerable success here at home, across the UK and beyond.

It was fitting that his outstanding achievements and legacy of success were recognised by Ards and North Down Borough Council by his induction on to the wall of fame at his local leisure centre, the Aurora in Bangor, in 2024. My thoughts and condolences are with the Harryman family and his many friends at this sad time. He will certainly be remembered for his incredible career as one of the finest rally co-drivers from Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: No one else has indicated. Thank you.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

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

Mr Lyons: This statutory rule (SR) makes amendments in relation to the lump sum payment scheme under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. The regulations make positive amendments to equalise payments made to dependants, bringing the amounts into line with payments made to sufferers. A clear, relevant date for the purposes of calculating awards is also being introduced along with clarification of to whom payment is to be made where a person makes a claim but dies before it can be paid.

Outdated references to medical boards that no longer exist are to be removed along with redundant top-up awards.

The regulations are considered technical in nature, in that they simplify and clarify the legislation underpinning the 1979 scheme. Aligning payments made to dependants with those made to sufferers can be seen only as a positive change, so I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): As the Committee Chairperson, I support the motion that the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations be affirmed. The Committee most recently considered the regulations at its meeting on 15 October and agreed to recommend that they be affirmed by the Assembly.

While the amendments are largely technical, they make a number of useful and positive changes to the operation of the scheme. The regulations amend the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1988. As the Minister mentioned, they will equalise payments to dependants with those made to sufferers; clarify whom should receive a payment where a person makes a claim but dies before the payment can be made; introduce a clear date for the purpose of calculating awards; remove references to medical boards that no longer exist; and remove the existing arrangement for top-up awards.

The Committee notes in particular the change in payments to dependants. At present, payments to dependants under the 1979 scheme are lower than those made to sufferers, and the arrangements can involve additional top-up calculations that are difficult to interpret and administer. The regulations will bring dependants' payments into line with those made to sufferers and provide a clearer and, we believe, more straightforward basis on which to make claims.

There is also an important clarification relating to cases in which a person made a claim but, sadly, died before the claim could be processed and paid. The Department advised that the existing legislation did not provide a clear basis for dealing with that situation. These regulations address the gap and provide greater clarity on to whom the payment should be made.

The regulations modernise some of the administrative provisions of the scheme. Existing provisions refer to determinations by medical boards that are no longer in existence, which, in practice, have been interpreted by reference to industrial injuries disablement benefit medical assessments. Those outdated references will be removed, and a clear relevant date will be established for determining the rate of award that applies to a claim.

I put on record the exceptional circumstances surrounding the Committee's scrutiny of the rule. The Minister wrote to the Committee on 23 September seeking its consideration within a shortened time frame. The reason given was the desire to ensure that people here could benefit from the changes from the same date as people in Britain, where the corresponding legislation was expected to come into force on 31 October. The Minister stated that those circumstances required a departure from the normal process and timescales for delegated legislation.

The Committee, at its meeting on 1 October, agreed to accommodate the reduced time frame in order to facilitate commencement on 31 October. At that stage, however, neither the draft statutory rule nor the explanatory memorandum was available. The Department laid those documents in the Business Office on 5 October, two working days later and before the Committee had been able to take the normal step of considering whether it was content for the Department to proceed to make the rule. As a consequence, when the Committee returned to the matter on 15 October, it moved directly to consider whether it had any objection to the rule as laid.

The Committee recognised the exceptional circumstances and, indeed, the importance of avoiding unnecessary delay to the operation of these beneficial provisions. Nevertheless, it is important that that sequence of events remain exceptional. Effective scrutiny is best served when Committees receive the documents sufficiently in advance of a rule being made and laid for there to be a meaningful opportunity to consider the proposals at each stage of the process. I therefore encourage the Department to ensure that future delegated legislation is brought forward in such a way as to allow the normal scrutiny process to take place.

The Committee's Citizen Space call for views ran from 1 October to 14 October and was updated with the relevant documents once they were made available to us. The Examiner of Statutory Rules considered the regulations and did not identify any matter that required the rule to be drawn to the special attention of the Assembly.

Taking all that into account, the Committee considers that the regulations make sensible and positive improvements to the scheme, particularly through the equalisation of dependants' and sufferers' payments and the clarification and modernisation of the arrangements for determining and paying awards. The Committee for Communities therefore recommends that the Assembly affirm the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2026.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Committee for Communities for the positive way in which it has dealt with the regulations. Its prompt consideration of them in what are, I accept, exceptional circumstances will enable the legislation to be made in a time frame that enables people here to benefit from the changes from 31 October. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move

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

Dr Archibald: The legislative consent motion (LCM) endorses the extension of the provisions of the Sporting Events Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords on 14 May 2026. The Bill is intended to create a legislative framework that Governments can use when bidding for major sporting events, as contained in clauses 1 to 13, 18 to 24, 25 and 26 to 30, together with schedules 1 to 3, schedule 5 — paragraphs 1 and 3 only — and schedule 6 to the Bill.

I consider that to be a positive step. I recognise the economic benefit that hosting major sporting events can bring to businesses and communities here. The Bill includes provisions in the following areas: ticket touting, advertising, trading, unauthorised association, enforcement, financial assistance, and transport and traffic management in England only. The Bill establishes a framework for regulating ticket touting, advertising and trading in connection with major sporting events. Those areas do not fall within excepted or reserved matters under schedules 2 and 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and are therefore within the legislative competence of the Assembly. The Bill contains 30 clauses, 25 of which will apply here. The proposal is that they be extended to this jurisdiction via an LCM.

I now turn to the specific clauses in the Bill that require legislative consent. Clause 1 introduces the concept of a legislative framework for sporting events. Clause 2 sets out the powers to apply the framework provisions. Clauses 3 to 5 set out the conditions that must be met before the regulation-making powers in clause 2 may be exercised. Those clauses define the appropriate authority and make further provision for regulations that apply the ticket touting provisions to sporting events.

Clauses 6 and 7 enable the designation of a person to grant authorisations in relation to ticket touting. They also enable regulations to include exceptions as to when a person may be in breach of the regulations.

Clauses 8 to 10 relate to advertising provisions. They set out provisions for regulations, the designation of a person to grant authorisations and when conduct does not constitute a breach of the prohibition on advertising.

Clauses 11 to 13 make further provision for regulations that apply to the trading provisions. That includes that the regulations must specify a place or places and the period for which the trading provisions apply. The regulations also set out the provisions that allow a designated person to grant authorisations and specify the circumstances in which conduct does not breach the prohibition on unauthorised trading.

Clause 18 provides that regulations applying the ticket touting, advertising and/or trading provisions to a sporting event may provide for one or more Department or public authority to enforce those offences.

Clauses 19 and 20 set out the circumstances in which an internet service provider does not breach the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences and the prohibition on unauthorised association. They also provide for circumstances in which a ticket touting, advertising or trading offence is committed by a corporate body.

Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State to amend the maximum fine for breaches of the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences by means of regulations. Clause 22 relates to any authority making regulations that will apply the advertising and/or trading provisions having to issue and publish guidance. Clause 23 amends schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and also amends the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 so that certain enforcement powers in those Acts are available to designated enforcement authorities under the Bill. Clause 24 defines terms used elsewhere in the Bill.

Clause 25 provides a power for financial assistance, and that power is conferred on local devolved Departments rather than on the Secretary of State, thus enabling financial support to be provided for qualifying events hosted here.

Clauses 26 and 27 enable the Secretary of State to make provisions consequential on the Bill by regulation. They make further provision for the regulations to be made under the Bill, including their form and parliamentary scrutiny. Clauses 28 to 30 explain where the Bill applies, confirm any legal changes that apply in the same areas, state that the Bill will commence two months after it has passed and give the Bill its official short title.

The Bill will create a flexible common legislative framework that can be applied to support the successful bidding for and delivery of major sporting events. By having a common framework and reducing the requirement for individual administrative commitments, the North will become a more attractive prospect for hosting major sporting events. My Department has worked closely with the Department of Justice and the Department for Communities, and I acknowledge the positive and constructive engagement with officials from those Departments.

Finally, I thank my Executive colleagues, who have given their support to seek legislative consent for the Bill's provisions. I thank the Committee for its interest and engagement on the matter and for the report that it produced. I therefore commend the motion to the Assembly.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): On behalf of the Committee, I extend our congratulations to our Chairman, Phillip Brett, on the lovely news of the birth of his daughter at the weekend.

As the Minister indicated, the UK Government's stated policy objectives for the Sporting Events Bill are to establish a legislative framework that enables the UK Government and the devolved Governments to attract major sporting events to the UK. The Bill will provide an event-agnostic legislative framework that can be applied to support the delivery and successful hosting of major sporting events across the United Kingdom or those solely in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

The idea is to move away from event-specific primary legislation and enable commonly required measures to be applied through secondary legislation as needed. The Bill is popular among international sporting event rights holders, as it includes protections for commercial rights and the management of activities such as advertising, trading and ticketing. The Bill also makes provision to create offences for ticket touting, advertising and unauthorised association. Under paragraph 1(1) of schedule 4, that refers to the:

The Committee was briefed by the Department for the Economy at its meeting on 16 September 2026, at which a number of key issues were discussed. The Department clarified that the Bill would replace the requirement for individual Government guarantees to be administered each time that the Northern Ireland Executive were to bid, or were to be part of a bid, for a major international event, such as the FIFA Women's World Cup 2035.

The Department advised that delegated legislation would have to be applied for each major sporting event in order to enact the powers. At this time, Northern Ireland could choose, if it wished, to use the new sporting events framework. The Department advised that the Bill is designed to provide assurances for major national events organisers that see the benefit of having a clear legislative framework, particularly in the areas of unauthorised association and ticket touting.

The Department advised that the devolved powers in the Bill may be exercised by a Northern Ireland Department, with policy responsibility for a sporting event under the direction and control of its Minister. The Department indicated that powers cannot and will not be exercised by the Executive as a whole. A Northern Ireland Department would, however, seek the Executive's approval to exercise powers under the Bill if the sporting event were considered to be cross-cutting, significant or controversial.

Further to that, officials indicated that a Northern Ireland Department could make regulations through the Northern Ireland Assembly or request the Secretary of State to legislate on a UK-wide basis.

The Department advised that there were no implications if the Republic of Ireland were to hold a cross-border major sporting event. A Northern Ireland Department could choose to use the Bill's provisions or not. In the case of an all-island event, an assessment would be made of whether the provisions set out in the Sporting Events Bill would be beneficial to the requirements of a bid for that specific tournament. Officials indicated that that would involve discussions with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on whether they would wish to align provisions in their jurisdiction with our provisions for the event in question.

The Committee noted that the departmental assurances and explanations were welcome and welcomed the legislation as an opportunity to promote related economic and tourism growth. The Committee was also relaxed about the late amendment, which includes provisions relating to recurrent events such as the Open. The Committee therefore agreed to support the legislative consent motion. That concludes my remarks on behalf of the Committee.

I will speak briefly now as a DUP MLA. We welcome the motion. We welcome the opportunities for Northern Ireland on the world stage. We love to see those events here. Northern Ireland already punches well above its weight in a number of those fields, and we welcome anything that strengthens that further.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Committee Chair for her contribution and support and welcome the interest that the Committee has taken in it. We all agree on the potential for further major sporting events and the benefits that they would bring from an economic and tourism perspective to our wider community and society. I look forward to working with Members to ensure that the North plays a leading role in bidding for major sporting events in the future. I recommend that the Assembly agrees the motion.

Ms Sugden: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call Claire Sugden to open the debate on the Bill.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to bring the Bill before the Assembly today. It is legislation that I have wanted to introduce for a very long time. Indeed, in many respects, the journey towards the Bill began almost 12 years ago when I was first elected to the House.

In 2014, as a new MLA, I went out to my constituency and met as many people, community groups and organisations as possible. I wanted to understand the communities that I represented, the challenges that people were experiencing and the issues that they believed needed greater attention. One thing that became apparent very quickly was how active older people's groups were throughout my constituency of East Londonderry. They are an important part of our community and voluntary sector. The groups bring people together to tackle loneliness and isolation, support people to remain active and independent and provide opportunities for older people to participate in community life. What struck me most about the groups was that they were not simply places where older people received support; they were places where older people provided support. They were volunteers, organisers, community leaders, carers and advocates. They were contributing enormously to the communities in which they lived.

Through those early conversations, I began to hear concerns about the way in which older people were treated and, in particular, about the absence of legal protection against age discrimination outside employment. That came up repeatedly. Older people told me that Northern Ireland had fallen far behind other parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland when it came to protecting their rights. They were concerned that decisions could be taken about them or services denied to them because of their age, without the same statutory protections that people elsewhere enjoy, and they wanted that to change.

Those conversations ultimately led to me establishing the all-party group on ageing and older people. Through that group and through continued engagement with older people's organisations, the issue became increasingly clear. It was not simply a concern raised by a handful of constituents; it was a long-standing omission in Northern Ireland's equality framework. That omission had been recognised by organisations working in equality, human rights and older people's advocacy for many years. The Commissioner for Older People, Age NI, the Equality Commission (ECNI) and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) have all contributed to the wider discussion about addressing that gap. The more that I explored the issue, the more apparent it became that it was a problem that would be addressed properly only through legislation. That is ultimately why we are all here today.

At the last Assembly election, I made a commitment that I would seek to introduce legislation to address age discrimination in the area of goods, facilities and services. I am pleased to be fulfilling that commitment. However, whilst I am the Member who has brought the Bill before the Assembly, I acknowledge from the outset that the motivation did not originate with me. It came from the people whom I represent. It came from older people who felt that their concerns had not been sufficiently recognised. It came from people who believed that their age should not determine whether they were treated fairly when accessing services. It came from organisations that have spent many years advocating for stronger legal protections. I have had the opportunity to take those concerns forward through the legislative process. However, the principle behind the Bill belongs to everyone who believes that a person's age should not be a reason for unjustified discrimination.

Although my own motivation began with older people, the more that I examined the issue, the clearer it became that its implications extend much further. Age discrimination does not affect older people exclusively. It can affect younger people. It can affect people at different stages throughout their life. It can affect any of us as we grow older. That is why the legislation before us is intended to establish protection for people who are aged 16 and over, rather than for one particular generation.

There is something particularly fitting about the timing of the debate. October is Positive Ageing Month in Northern Ireland. Earlier this month, on 1 October, we marked International Day of Older Persons. Throughout October, community groups, councils and organisations throughout Northern Ireland are recognising the contribution of older people to our society. They are encouraging positive and active ageing, highlighting opportunities for social connection and celebrating the important roles that older people continue to play in their communities. I very much welcome that. However, Positive Ageing Month should also encourage us, as legislators, to reflect on how we treat older people. How do public services respond to their needs? How do our policies support their independence? How do our laws provide the protections that they deserve? While we rightly celebrate older people and their contribution to society, Northern Ireland continues to lack the general legal protection against age discrimination in goods, facilities and services that is already available in the United Kingdom and Ireland. That is a contradiction that we, as an Assembly, should address. Positive ageing should not simply be something that we celebrate but something that we support through our policies, public services and laws.

There is also a wider demographic argument for doing so. Northern Ireland's population is ageing. According to the latest population projections from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), by the middle of next year, 2027, there will be more people aged over 65 living in Northern Ireland than children under the age of 16. NISRA projects that there will be approximately 375,600 people aged over 65, compared with 365,700 children aged under 16. That is a significant demographic milestone. I hope that, subject to the Assembly's approval, 2027 will also be the year in which the Bill receives Royal Assent. There will be something particularly meaningful about those two milestones coinciding.

At a time when our population is ageing and we should be planning strategically for the implications of that change, Northern Ireland still does not afford older people the same general legal protection against age discrimination in everyday services that exists elsewhere in these islands. The implications of an ageing population extend far beyond equality legislation. They extend to health and social care, housing, transport, financial services, community provision and public services. As people live longer, the decisions made by those who provide services can have increasingly important consequences for their independence, well-being, financial security and quality of life. We know that our society is changing and that public services and the wider economy will have to adapt to that. Surely, then, the legal framework within which those services operate should also reflect the society that we are becoming.

I do not make the argument that older people deserve protection because they are becoming a larger proportion of our population. Their entitlement to equal treatment does not depend on their numbers, but our changing population makes the practical importance of the legislation increasingly obvious. Our laws should reflect the society that we are becoming rather than the society that we were when those protections were first considered. I believe that that makes the case for addressing the gap now rather than continuing to defer it.

I want to explain why the legislation matters to people in their everyday lives. When we talk about equality legislation, it is easy to become absorbed in legal definitions, statutory provisions and technical arguments. Those things are important, and I will come to them later in my speech, but, ultimately, the Bill is about people. It is about how people are treated when they access healthcare, seek financial services, use public transport, book accommodation, access leisure facilities or seek support from a public authority. Age discrimination is not necessarily something dramatic or immediately obvious. It may arise from a policy that has been in place for many years and has never been properly questioned.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way and for introducing this important piece of legislation. She talked about healthcare, insurance, housing, retail and leisure, and the policies that are in place. Does the Member believe that there will need to be a look across Departments at the policies and legislation that are in place so that they fit with this particular piece of legislation? There may need to be a review of those policies as well.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member for her intervention. Absolutely. Indeed, Part 5 of the Bill empowers the Equality Commission to provide the knowledge and understanding of how the legislation will take effect. You are right to say that not only does the Bill affect private-sector businesses but it cuts across public-sector functions.

Age discrimination may also arise over what someone is capable of doing because of their age or it may arise because of a decision about an individual without proper consideration of their personal circumstances. For example, imagine that someone in their 70s is applying for a financial product. They have a reliable income, substantial savings, and a history of managing their finances responsibly. Yet, they discover that their access is restricted because they have passed a particular age. There may be legitimate reasons for age-based restrictions in some financial products — a lender may need to consider affordability, repayment periods and risk — but those matters should be capable of examination. The question should not simply be whether someone is 70 or 75. It should be whether the treatment has a lawful basis and, where required, that it can be justified.

Let us consider another example. An older person lives independently and has always dealt with their bank in person or over the telephone. The bank decides to move a particular service entirely online and the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of age. However, its effect may fall disproportionately on people who are less confident using digital technology or who cannot easily access it. That does not mean that digital banking in itself is unlawful. Nor does it mean that banks should not modernise, but it does raise questions about whether the policy creates a particular disadvantage, whether it can be justified and whether reasonable alternatives exist. Those are precisely the kinds of questions that equality law can help us examine.

We should also recognise that age discrimination can affect younger people. A young adult may be refused accommodation because a hotel assumes that everyone under a particular age is likely to behave irresponsibly.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. The concern that I raised at Committee was that you need to be 18 to enter a contract, so, as far as I am concerned, if you went and booked a hotel room, you would be entering a contract. I still have not got my head around how you would square that with people between 16 and 17 years of age being discriminated against.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member. I have considered that since the conversation that we had at Committee. My understanding in respect of the Bill is that it is the subject of the discrimination rather than the contractual arrangement between the individuals, so the discrimination case that may be taken would not be between the persons who the contractual arrangement exists with. It would be against the subject — the young person, for example — because they are being treated differently on the basis of their age. There is also a section — I cannot quite remember the Part — that talks about contracts, and that ensures that contracts themselves do not provide a legal loophole in which discrimination can be written out of law. We certainly need to discuss that further in Committee because it is a fair point.