Official Report: Monday 02 November 2026

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill has received Royal Assent. The Administrative and Financial Provisions Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 26 October 2026 and is chapter 10.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that we are all deeply saddened to learn of Ciara Mageean's passing. She was a young woman who displayed a great passion for her sport, great determination, strength of spirit and resilience, and she was a fantastic role model. We are all deeply saddened to learn that she has lost her battle with cancer, which she fought in a very public and open way, and we thank her for that. Our sincerest sympathies are with her family at this time.

Nicola Brogan has been given leave to make a statement on the passing of Ciara that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. Other Members who wish to be called should indicate that in the usual manner.

Miss Brogan: It is with great regret and sadness that I pay tribute to the incredible and inspiring Ciara Mageean following her untimely passing at only 34 years of age yesterday morning. Ciara was, first and foremost, a wonderful wife, daughter, sister and friend, and I pass on my deepest condolences to Ciara's husband, Thomas, her parents, family and wide circle of friends at this very sad time.

Portaferry's Ciara Mageean was an exceptional athlete, and her achievements in athletics brought immense pride to her community and to people across Ireland. Despite being taken from her friends and family at such a young age, she achieved incredible success in international sport. Ciara was a former European champion and two-time Olympian. She represented Ireland at the 2016 and 2020 Olympic Games, and, in 2024, she claimed the gold medal in the 1,500 metres at the European Athletics Championships in Rome.

She set an Irish record for that race, beating the one set by the legendary Sonia O'Sullivan.

Ciara was an inspiration to so many. Her strength, dedication and determination throughout her sporting career inspired many young athletes throughout Ireland, especially young women. Her courage and determination continued when she faced a battle with bowel cancer. Even after being diagnosed with cancer, she continued to campaign for young women to take a greater role in sport, and, in June, rather than lamenting her condition, she declared how grateful she was to have been able to live the exceptional life that she did.

Ciara Mageean was a true Irish legend, and I hope that everyone in the House will join me in honouring her legacy and extending our heartfelt condolences to her family, friends and fellow athletes. I hope that Ciara's family can take some comfort from the outpouring of grief from across Ireland and beyond since her passing and know how deeply admired, respected and loved she was by so many. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a hanam dílis.

Mr McNulty: First and foremost, Ciara Mageean was a daughter, a sister and a wife loved by her family and friends, and my thoughts and prayers are with them.

Ciara was an extraordinary athlete. We were so inspired by her determination, her work ethic and her tenacity as a competitor on the track. There are moments in sport that make your hair stand up on the back of your neck, and Ciara's gold medal-winning performance at the 2024 European Athletics Championships in Rome was one of those moments.

Growing up, Ciara was a "GAA girl", and she said that she cut her teeth as a camogie player for Portaferry. She described how that was where she learned her love of sport. Ciara's comments after breaking through on the final straight to win that gold medal struck a chord that resonated with all of us in the GAA when she said:

Everyone in the GAA family felt immense pride in what Ciara achieved.

Only recently, Ciara married Thomas in a joyous and uniquely special occasion in Darver Castle in County Louth. Just a few short months ago, she spoke at an event in Newry on a panel with uachtarán Chumann Lúthchleas Gael

Jarlath Burns. She was in a new battle, and she spoke about her diagnosis openly and bravely. Remarkably, Ciara said:

She was thinking of others before herself. I was profoundly moved by her energy, her determination and her joie de vivre. The warmth of her hug is something that I shall never forget.

Ciara was a shining star of County Down and of Ireland. Her career as an athlete and her cancer battle showed us her heroism. She is a huge loss to Ireland. Everyone in the world of athletics knows that they have lost someone incredibly special. Ciara was a leader, a trailblazer and a gentle warrior. I measc na naomh go raibh sí.

Mr O'Toole: Like others, I will speak in remembrance and tribute to the extraordinary human being that Ciara Mageean was. She was a truly inspirational person not just because of her achievements on the track — Members have mentioned her extraordinary success, with her European gold medal and the medals that she won elsewhere at European championships and Commonwealth Games, and her participation in two Olympic Games — but because of the human achievement of inspiring and encouraging people not just to get involved in sport but to think positively about the contribution that they can make.

Ciara's loss is felt particularly deeply because of her age. She was a young woman of just 34. She had only recently got married, and many of us will have seen the images of the joy and celebration at Ciara's wedding just a couple of weeks ago with her long-time partner, Thomas. Those of us who did not know her but were inspired by her will have seen those images and again felt inspired by her courage and tenacity in response to her devastating bowel cancer diagnosis just a short time ago as well as feeling joy that she was able to experience that moment of happiness and togetherness. I do not think that many of us expected that, so soon after that day, she would be taken away by cancer. In one sense, it is a reminder — an important reminder — to us all of the fragility of life.

In the Chamber, we talk loudly at one another about important issues, but the most important thing of all is the mark that we leave on our families and our communities. Ciara had a loving family, whom we think of today. She also came from a community that shaped her and was profoundly proud of her. As my colleague Justin McNulty mentioned, she was a Portaferry woman to her fingertips and a camogie player who famously talked about the camogie skills that had stood her in good stead when she won her title. She was shaped profoundly by that beautiful community at the tip of the Ards peninsula. It is an extraordinarily scenic place but also an extraordinarily loving and warm community. The whole community will be mourning intensely today, but it will wrap her family and friends in love and good wishes as they face the difficult period ahead, because, while Ciara was a public figure who inspired and touched so many of us, particularly, as Nicola Brogan said, young women, she was also a wife, a sister, a daughter and a close friend to so many people in that part of the world. While we all express our public grief today, as well as our thanks for her extraordinary life and the extraordinary contribution that she made in her 34 short years, let us also say that our first thoughts go to her family and the community grieving her today. May she rest in peace.

Miss McIlveen: It is with incredible sadness that I pay tribute to a remarkable young woman, a sporting champion and a proud daughter of Portaferry, Ciara Mageean, who has sadly passed away at just 34 years of age following her battle with cancer.

I first became aware of Ciara in 2008, when I was part of a panel from the then Ards Borough Council that awarded her the title of Young Woman of Achievement. Even back then, we could see that she was destined for greatness. For the people of Portaferry, the wider Strangford constituency and the rest of Northern Ireland, this is an incredibly sad day. Ciara brought enormous pride to her home town and inspired people far and wide. Who can forget how the town was festooned with posters, Olympic flags and bunting for her heading off to Paris? She was an extraordinary and gutsy athlete whose achievements will rightly be remembered in our sporting history. She competed at two Olympic Games: Rio in 2016 and Tokyo in 2021. She won European championship bronze in 2016 and silver in 2022 and Commonwealth Games silver in 2022, before achieving the crowning moment of her career with gold in the 1,500 metres at the European championships in Rome in 2024, bursting her way through to win.

Behind those medals was a remarkable person. Ciara was a competitor with tremendous determination, courage and an ability to dig deep when it mattered most. She was immensely proud to be a Portaferry girl, remaining deeply connected to her family, friends and community, and Portaferry was immensely proud of her. Her courage was also evident following her diagnosis. She faced her illness with honesty, dignity and determination, speaking openly about her experiences and helping others facing their own difficult journey. Ciara should never be defined by her illness, however. She was so much more than her cancer diagnosis. She was a daughter, sister, wife, Olympian and European champion, with so much more life to live.

It is particularly heartbreaking that her passing comes so soon after her marriage to Thomas. On behalf of the people of Strangford, I extend my deepest condolences to Thomas, her parents, her family, her friends and all who loved her. Ciara's legacy goes beyond medals, records and trophies. She showed us what determination looks like, what it means to represent your community with pride and how to face life's greatest challenges with courage and grace. Portaferry has lost one of its brightest stars. Northern Ireland has lost a remarkable ambassador. All of us have lost a truly special young woman.

Ms K Armstrong: As someone from the area, it is with great sadness that I rise to speak today. My brother-in-law is a Mageean, so we feel the loss of Ciara Mageean in the family. I send my sympathies to Tommy, her husband; Chris and Catherine, her mummy and daddy; her siblings; and her wider family — all the Masons and Mageeans.

Portaferry will be still tomorrow during Ciara's funeral. I imagine that not only the chapel but the whole area around the chapel will be completely full of people to see Ciara off. Portaferry is one of those places where you are related to everybody, where everybody knows who you are, where everybody has something to say and where everybody celebrates when somebody like Ciara Mageean has such victories. Ciara was growing and blossoming into a fantastic athlete. At the European Athletics Championships, she went from bronze in 2016 to silver in 2022 to, of course, gold in Rome in 2024. She was a two-time Olympian. She competed at the Commonwealth Games. She was a player for the Portaferry camogie team. I was once a player for the Portaferry camogie team, and I have to say that Ciara was a lot faster than I ever was. Upper Ards is in mourning today. In fact, it has been in mourning since the word came out yesterday. As others have mentioned, the town has, over the years, been festooned with posters of Ciara and bunting for her. Portaferry's love for Ciara and the love that Ciara had for Portaferry will now go to her family. We all think about them at this very sad time.

I have said before in the House that I hate cancer with a passion. It takes people from us, and it took Ciara far, far too young. When I lost my mother — another woman who lost her life very young to cancer — some lovely words of care and support came from Ciara's granny, Kate Mason, a woman who would terrify any of us who stood beside her. She was a matriarch — a matriarch of Portaferry, not just the Mason family. I hope that the family can take some comfort in knowing that Ciara's successes were not the only thing about her. Her infectious smile, her wonderful personality, her Goal Mile on Christmas morning: all those things show the type of person that Ciara was. I feel for you, Tommy. Rest in peace, Ciara.

Mr Nesbitt: I put on record my party's sorrow at the passing of Ciara Mageean and offer our condolences to her husband, Thomas; her family and friends; and her many, many admirers around the world, because she was a global figure. I found the news of Ciara's passing on her Facebook page on social media. It read:

I never had the honour of meeting Ciara, so I missed out on the pleasure. By all accounts, we must never remember her solely as a fine athlete. She was also one of the best of us as a human being. One Facebook post struck me, and, as I cannot better it, I will quote it:

As someone who was active in local athletics a long time ago, I have maintained an interest in following our best. I had the pleasure of being in Edinburgh in 1986, when Philip Beattie won our first pure Commonwealth track gold medal in the 400 metres hurdles. Ciara, as has been recorded, managed a silver in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games of 2022 and eclipsed that feat in 2024 with the European Athletics Championships 1,500 metres gold medal.

It was athletics that brought Ciara to our attention, but those who knew her discovered that she did not excel just on the track. Social media alerted me to Ciara's hen party. She called it "Camp Ciara", and it was clearly a defiant refusal to allow cancer to control her. That was in the last weekend of September, and, by the first weekend in November, she was gone, aged 34. Only the good die young.

Mr Gaston: There is no MLA in the Chamber who does not have a family member or friend who has been impacted by cancer. Every diagnosis of cancer is tragic and reminds us of the limited time that we will spend on this earth before we enter eternity. The sad death of Ciara Mageean, aged just 34, is a particularly tragic example of the brevity of mortal existence.

In her young life, Ciara rose to the pinnacle of athletics, winning gold at European level and silver at Commonwealth level and taking part in the Olympics twice. Yet, in spite of proving that she was one of the fittest athletes on earth, she, like so many others, has been cut down in her prime by cancer. My thoughts are with her entire family, her friends and her colleagues in the sporting world. It is my prayer that they will find some consolation in the many remarkable achievements that she packed into her short life, for she achieved so much in such a short time, and in the esteem in which she was held, which was evident throughout her battle with cancer and which we can see in her sad passing. I trust that Ciara's passing will focus our minds on the fact that our time on this earth is short and that it is only through faith in Christ that we are ready to pass from this earth into eternity to meet our Maker.

My thoughts are with her family at this sad time. I am 38, and the fact that a young lady of 34 has been cut down in the prime of her life does not bear thinking about. I cannot contemplate how her family will process that, but I trust that they will take some comfort in the outpouring of love for Ciara and the prayers offered by her local community at this time.

Mr Kingston: I add my tribute to the wonderful, world-class middle-distance runner who was Ciara Mageean. It was shocking to hear yesterday morning that Ciara, aged just 34, had passed away, even though we knew that her cancer was at an advanced stage. It was especially sad, as it came just three weeks after her marriage to her long-term partner, Thomas Moran, and I join all Members in expressing deepest sympathy to Thomas and to Ciara's family and her many friends and associates.

I met Ciara only once, but it was clear that she was a class act. I met her at a charity run in the grounds of Stormont in October 2022 in aid of the Children's Cancer Unit Charity. That summer, Ciara had won silver medals at the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, where she represented Northern Ireland, and the European Athletics Championships in Munich, where she represented Ireland. She was also a two-time Olympian. For all that exceptional success, Ciara was very approachable and agreed to lots of requests for photographs. She even recorded a short video to wish me and some friends well for forthcoming marathons, and I treasure that short video. Ciara went on to win gold at the next European Athletics Championships, which were held in 2024 in Rome, and it is shocking to think that she has been taken from us by cancer little more than two years later.

Ciara was truly a 'Star of the County Down', of Northern Ireland and of all of Ireland. She will rightly be remembered as an inspirational woman not just for what she achieved in middle-distance running and the 1,500 metres but for the way in which she fought her battle with cancer and was such a wonderful ambassador for Portaferry, the Ards peninsula, Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. It was our pleasure to follow Ciara as she advanced her running career and achieved great things. She leaves a strong legacy and will be much loved and remembered.

Mr Mathison: I echo Mr Kingston's remarks. It is hard to believe that, just over two years ago, many of us stood in the Chamber to congratulate Ciara on the phenomenal achievement of winning the gold in the European championships. It is also hard to believe that, in such a short space of time, her life would be so tragically cut short by that cruel disease. It really is hard to take in. I cannot imagine what her family, particularly her mum, Catherine, her dad, Chris, and her husband, Thomas, must be feeling today. My thoughts are firmly with them and with all those who knew and loved Ciara.

Ciara was a fantastic ambassador for the whole island of Ireland — the place that she so passionately competed for in her sport. As Kellie and others have said, however, she was an even more fantastic ambassador for Portaferry, her home town and home community. I know that everyone in that community feels her loss keenly today, and my thoughts are with them. Despite all her sporting success and fame, of which much will be said in the days to come, Ciara remained deeply connected to her home and her community in Portaferry. She remained, to the last, incredibly proud of those roots, so a whole community mourns her loss today and will do so in the days ahead. My thoughts extend to everyone feeling that grief in Portaferry, on the Ards peninsula, in the wider Strangford constituency and across the whole island of Ireland.

I have no doubt that Ciara's career would have brought her much more success and more medals, but today is less about her sporting achievements and more about remembering the person she was: warm, gracious and thoroughly down to earth. I again extend my sympathies to her family, her friends and the wider community, who are feeling the loss of that wonderful person so painfully at this time.

Mr Harvey: I join the tributes today and offer my deepest sympathy in memory of the life of Ciara Mageean, an outstanding Olympian and European athletics champion from Portaferry who sadly passed away yesterday. Ciara's passing is an immense loss, especially to her family and friends but also to the people of Portaferry, the wider Strangford constituency and the entire sporting community across Northern Ireland. Born and raised in Portaferry, Ciara was a tremendous ambassador for her home community. She went on to achieve international success, representing Ireland at the Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games and making history when she won the European 1,500-metre gold in Rome in 2024.

Ciara Mageean's achievements on the track were remarkable, but it was the personality behind those achievements that made her so special. Her determination, humility, warmth and infectious enthusiasm inspired people of all ages. She demonstrated what can be achieved through dedication, hard work and an unwavering belief in oneself. Throughout her illness, Ciara showed extraordinary courage and spoke openly about her journey, touching the lives of countless people. Her strength and determination in the face of such adversity were an inspiration to so many. It is particularly heartbreaking that her life has been cut so short, especially having recently celebrated her marriage. Our thoughts and prayers are with her husband, Thomas, her parents, Christopher and Catherine, her sisters and brother, the extended family and her friends at this incredibly difficult time.

For a small community such as Portaferry, producing someone who achieved so much on the international stage is something of which it can be immensely proud. Ciara's legacy will live on not just through her medals and records but through the generations of young people whom she has inspired to take up sport and pursue their dreams. Ciara may have left us far too soon, but she will never be forgotten.

Mr McMurray: I thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for allowing the Matter of the Day to be heard, and I thank Nicola Brogan for securing it. Ultimately, there are no words that can epitomise the sadness that must be felt by Ciara Mageean's husband, family, training partners and coaches and by the townspeople of Portaferry. I am so sorry for their loss.

Likewise, there are no words that can put into context Ciara's achievements on the world stage in athletics, which are also difficult to comprehend. In our house, we are athletics fans. We take a passing interest in other sports, but, for us, it is athletics. My wife is a runner, my daughter is a runner, and I have a pair of spikes somewhere about the place, believe it or not. I was a big Ciara fan. I got the chance to meet her and have a conversation about her running, my running and my wife's running — she just loved running. In fact, on the front of 'The Irish Times' today, there is quite a good anecdote about how much she loved running despite being sick.

Ciara was a two-time Olympian, won a silver medal at the Commonwealth Games and competed at the World Athletics Championships. She had so much talent, but that gold medal at the Europeans — boxed in, elbows out — was pure class. We loved watching Ciara. It brought so much joy to us, as athletics fans, that a woman from the Ards peninsula in County Down could mix it up with the world's best. It was just brilliant. Athletics is an honest sport. Yes, talent comes into it, but results are earned through hard training, and Ciara put so much effort into her running. It is about resilience. Ciara suffered injuries in her early career, but those only made her come back stronger. Indeed, I referenced joy earlier, but our joy was only a fraction of the joy that Ciara took from running. You could see that in her smile. I was looking at tributes and photographs on social media, and it struck me that, even when grimacing as she kicked down the home straight, that grimace often looked like a grin.

Ciara's achievements are in the record books, but I will read them into the record. She is the Irish record holder at 800 metres in one minute and 58 seconds; at 1 kilometre in two minutes and 31 seconds; at 1,500 metres in three minutes and 55 seconds; and at 1 mile in four minutes and 14 seconds. She won national titles against senior athletes when she was just 15.

Yesterday, there was an athletics event just down the road from here as part of the Northern Ireland and Ulster Cross Country Championships. Given the news, it will have been a hard day for many in attendance at that event. However, underage athletics, especially female athletics, is incredibly popular. I have no doubt that Ciara's influence and legacy will bear out amongst the many young females who toe the start line. Ciara wanted to give back to athletics, and her legacy will give back as well. Run fast, run free, Ciara.

Mr Honeyford: I also wish to express my sadness at the death of Ciara. I chair the all-party group on sports and physical recreation, and we have seen the outpouring from sporting organisations over the past 24 hours. I pay tribute to someone who represents the very best of all of us. Ciara was a wonderful ambassador for Ireland but also for Northern Ireland, and she was someone whom we should all be — we have seen it across the Chamber — incredibly proud of. It shows that sport has the ability to bring us together in a way that nothing else really can. It inspires us and breaks down the barriers. We need way more ambassadors like Ciara to show what is possible and to bring out the very best in all of us. At this very sad time, my thoughts and deepest sympathies are with Ciara's family, friends and everyone who knew her.

Ms O'Neill: Like many other Members of the House, I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Ciara Mageean, and I extend my heartfelt condolences to her husband, Tommy, her mummy and daddy, her siblings, her friends and everyone who loved her. Ciara's achievements in athletics brought immense pride to her, to her community and to people across Ireland. She was so courageous in her battle against cancer. I only hope, as we all do, that her family can take some comfort from the outpouring of admiration, respect and love for Ciara. She really was a champion of champions. May she for ever be the star of County Down.

The DUP's decision to disrupt and block the operation of the Executive Office is undemocratic, arrogant and supremacist. At the core of it all is the DUP's inability to comprehend a nationalist First Minister. In 2024, as an Irish republican and nationalist, I took the office of First Minister. It was a historic moment and a moment of hope, opportunity and enormous change. I have worked every single day to deliver positive change for everyone in our community. Unfortunately, throughout that time, the DUP has spent the past two years desperately trying to turn back the clock and undermine democracy. It tried to relive the dark days of supremacy on the Garvaghy Road. I was proud to have stood with the Garvaghy Road community.

I have a message for those sitting opposite me: the days of domination are over, the days of treating others as second-class citizens are over, and the days of telling nationalists to know their place are over and are not coming back. I stand here today every bit as much the First Minister as I was this time last week, and as I was when I took up this office on that historic day. You can play every petty political game and perform every stunt that you wish to, but you cannot and will not thwart the democratic will of the people. I have a very clear and very strong mandate from the people, which I will fulfil every day.

As First Minister, I have been working tirelessly to secure fair funding in order to deliver fair pay for our nurses, healthcare workers and public-sector staff, and to invest in our public services. I will continue to stand up for people, to fight for good public services, and to deliver for everyone right across our community. That is my focus, and I will not be distracted by anyone or anyone's games.

Mr Frew: The First Minister should own her decisions and actions. She should know that, when you break the law, there are consequences for us all in Northern Ireland.

Rasharkin Chosen Few Orange lodge operates from the Orange hall that is the most attacked in Northern Ireland, with 51 incidents in 30 years. Where is the peace that was promised to that community? Where is the tolerance? Why does it experience so much evil? I have met that lodge and other groups that wish to use that facility more but cannot. How can they, when they are being intimidated? The attacks range from graffiti being sprayed in the dead of night, highlighting and supporting terrorist groups that have murdered and maimed people in the community, to the building's being set on fire. It now has steel doors and no windows, with members unable to park their cars outside for fear of attack. There is a high perimeter fence around the hall, which makes it look more like a maximum security facility than a community hub where young people can learn instruments and historical marching band music, where people can have a sense of belonging or pride, or where organisations can raise much-needed funding for good causes. That criminal activity is orchestrated and designed to intimidate and create an intense level of fear. We thank the decent people of the community who offer support. We know that it is a small number of people who target the hall and intimidate not only the Orange community but the whole community of Rasharkin. It is totally and utterly unacceptable.

When it comes to law and order and the protection of people, we look to the PSNI. It is fair to say that the members of the lodge and all associated organisations and families feel isolated and vulnerable. They feel let down by the PSNI, which should do more to investigate those crimes and have a greater and more effective presence in Rasharkin. I condemn the attacks on all Orange halls and all facilities that the community uses, and I wish that they would end now.

Ms Bradshaw: The events surrounding the Garvaghy Road and Drumcree demonstrated how quickly community tensions can become a political crisis here. My concern today is not simply about the events of recent weeks but about what happens next and the consequences of last week's announcement by the DUP for the work of the Executive Office. I do not want to rehearse what happened, but I highlight how concerned my party colleagues and I are about the price that the public will be asked to pay because of the political situation.

The DUP's decision to withdraw from joint engagements and to prevent the First Minister from attending official engagements alone has immediate and practical consequences. We have already seen Northern Ireland lose the opportunity to be represented at a major economic forum involving the Prime Minister and leaders of the other devolved Administrations, and a planned engagement with the president of Ireland has apparently also been affected. Those are not merely diary arrangements or photo opportunities but opportunities to make the case for Northern Ireland, to secure investment, to press for fair funding and to build the relationships that are needed across these islands in order to deliver for our people. At a time when Departments are operating without an agreed Budget for this financial year, when public-sector workers are rightly seeking fair pay and when our public services are under immense pressure, we cannot afford to allow political relations to deteriorate further. I have raised the issue at the Executive Office Committee. We have all seen what happened previously when there was political stalemate and we did not have an Executive or an Assembly for protracted periods.

In just under five months, the Assembly will be dissolved. Those are five months in which the Executive need to be upping their game, ensuring that our Departments have certainty about their funding, that we address public-sector pay, as I mentioned, and that tangible progress is demonstrated on the priorities that matter most to the people of Northern Ireland, as laid down in the Programme for Government. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister have a particular responsibility in that regard. Their office is not simply a vehicle for representing their respective parties but a joint Department with responsibilities to every person in Northern Ireland, regardless of political affiliation, religious background, ethnicity or constitutional aspiration. They have a responsibility — a joint responsibility — to ensure that all parts of government here are performing as effectively and responsively as possible.

The people of Northern Ireland did not elect us to spend time in the Chamber in some sort of stand-off. We in the Alliance Party will continue to press at the Executive table for constructive engagement and practical solutions, and the priority for us all now is to restore effective working relationships, to protect the functioning of the Executive and to ensure that the remaining months of this mandate are used to deliver for the people who depend on us.

Mr Burrows: The events over the weekend emphasise the need for a comprehensive and urgent change to our fireworks laws. The endless bangs at random times throughout the Halloween period have inflicted terror and trauma on our pets and on our livestock. This is a country that loves its animals. About 250,000 people own cats, and about one in every two households owns a dog. Half the dogs in Northern Ireland are adversely affected by fireworks. My own dog Nancy, a little Border collie, was petrified all weekend and had to be sedated by the vet. Some other pet owners were not so lucky. I have been following the plight of Natasha from Scarva, whose fox red Labrador bolted after a firework. She has still not found her dog. Other pets are missing across Northern Ireland. Enough is enough.

We have called before for comprehensive change. It did not get support from the DUP, the Alliance Party or Sinn Féin when we asked for urgent changes to our fireworks legislation. I will lay out three simple changes that we in the Ulster Unionist Party believe in. First, there should be only public displays of fireworks, not private displays. Those public displays should move to being silent ones, based on light. Secondly, we should ban outright fireworks being in private hands, which is the policy that we used to have in Northern Ireland. Thirdly, we need tougher penalties for those who supply fireworks illegally and those who use fireworks illegally.

Fireworks are a blight on our society. There is simply no need, just for young people and adults' enjoyment, to have bangs from fireworks, as they cause so much trauma in our community. I therefore ask for cross-community support for tougher laws on fireworks, for the banning of private purchase, even with a fireworks licence and for the limiting, as far as is possible, of public fireworks displays to silent displays. We are a nation that loves animals, but they go through hell every Halloween, and they do not need to go through that hell for our enjoyment. I ask for cross-party support to save our pets from the trauma of fireworks every year.

Mr O'Toole: On returning to Stormont this morning after the short mid-term break, we will have noticed that the weather has turned cooler and there is a bite in the air as we approach the winter. My thoughts and those of all of us who were elected to represent people and govern this place should be focused on the fact that we approach winter facing another huge inflationary spike. The costs of home heating oil and of filling up our cars have reached extraordinary, painful and eye-watering levels for ordinary people, including ordinary public-sector workers, domiciliary care workers, nurses, teachers and junior civil servants — all of the people who keep this society running. It is now highly likely, if not certain, that those people will not get the pay rise that they are owed in time for Christmas. That rise would have helped them not just with Christmas costs — we know that those add up — but with the basic costs of heating their home, filling their oil tank or filling their car. Why? It is because the Executive cannot or will not set a Budget, meaning that even the small amount of support that comes from the British Government cannot be spent here. As I say every time I talk about this, we agree that the Executive need to get more money from the British Government. We support that call, but ordinary people here on low wages — those who keep this society and our public services running and who look after our people — are being failed by the Executive.

What is the thing that everyone is talking about? What, we are told, is the big political story that we all have to care about? It is what Carla said on Facebook, what Jonny says on a certain radio outlet or what Jamie, Timothy or Jim might say on Twitter. Here is what I think, and it is not about what I think: the ordinary people who are struggling to fill their car or heat their home do not care about that, and nor do I. This place is in utter disrepute, but we are told that what matters is random infighting between parts of the DUP. That is a disgrace — a disgrace. It should shame Members that we are seven months into the financial year without a Budget or any way of paying ordinary people. Yet, people think that it is acceptable to engage in ridiculous commentary about DUP infighting.

This week, once again, the SDLP will publish proposals on how to fundamentally change our politics, because we know that this place is not working, with people talking once again about collapsing government here. However, we will also engage in a conversation that is becoming more urgent: a conversation about a new Ireland. I say this to people in the DUP: my colleagues and I have held this Government and the Executive — the DUP and Sinn Féin — to account for their failures, but, if you want to accelerate the conversation about a new Ireland, keep going.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: Keep going.

Dr Archibald: First, I associate myself with the condolences for Ciara Mageean's family and friends. She was an absolute star and leaves a huge legacy.

Not content with blocking the First Minister's and, bizarrely, her own attendance at last Friday's economic council meeting in Glasgow, the deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, blocked my attendance as Economy Minister, ensuring that the Executive and the North had no political representation. That was a disgraceful failure that robbed us of the opportunity to promote our economy. The North continues to outperform Britain in economic growth and export growth, not least because of our dual market access, which the DUP, of course, opposed and try to talk down. We are leading the way in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, life and health sciences, cyber and software. Instead of seizing the opportunity to promote our strengths and why it makes sense to invest in and collaborate with businesses and institutions here, the DUP, in an act of economic vandalism, put its narrow party interests ahead of our economy, punishing everyone else as a result.

It is not the first time that the DUP has put its self-interest and internal wrangling ahead of people and businesses here. Most notably, the DUP backed Brexit, which, everyone knew, would cause economic harm. The DUP also opposed all reasonable attempts to mitigate the disastrous impact of Brexit, including those that gave the North a competitive advantage. Party figures, including its now incarcerated former leader, said that they could live with tens of thousands of job losses. The economic incoherence of the DUP's position was further underscored by the deputy First Minister's now deleted late-night Twittering. We were all bemused to learn that the deputy First Minister, who has made much of her showing up in the past, sees engagements with the British Prime Minister as meaningless set pieces. In reality, it was an important opportunity for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to have face-to-face engagement with the British Prime Minister.

That significant meeting was recklessly and senselessly blocked by the DUP because, as a party, you are in utter disarray and looking over your shoulder at the TUV after your recent failed attempts to drag society here backwards. The DUP is doing an amazing job of highlighting the dysfunctional nature of the Six-County state, adding to the incontrovertible arguments for constitutional change. In the interim, however, and despite the severe limitations, both fiscal and institutional, First Minister Michelle O'Neill and my colleagues and I will show up every day to work on behalf of all our communities and do our best for workers, families and businesses here.

Mrs Middleton: The discovery of a viable device at a hotel on the Ebrington site is deeply disturbing and deserves the strongest possible condemnation. Let me be clear: in Northern Ireland, there was never a place for violence. There is no place for it now, and it remains completely unwelcome in the future. It was not simply an attack on a building but an attack that put the lives of hotel staff, guests, local workers and members of the public at risk. Disgustingly, families and our precious children were enjoying a funfair mere metres away from where the device was delivered. In a week when the city planned to welcome tens of thousands of visitors to bring much-needed revenue, the planned disruption and vile actions were nothing less than abhorrent and disgraceful. The consequences could have been devastating. It is clear that the person or group yet to be identified cares nothing for our safety, the peace that we so desire or our lives. It is disgusting. Frankly, it is absurd to think that human life could mean so little to others. I thank the PSNI officers and army ammunition technical officers who worked tirelessly and put their own lives at risk to protect the public.

There have been suggestions from the PSNI that the device could be the work of dissident republicans. It is not for me to speculate, but, understandably, questions have been asked about whether the incident could be connected to the poor actions of some politicians regarding their disdain for a British Army and RAF presence at a careers and jobs fair at the hotel. It is important to stress that the police investigation is ongoing. However, if the attack was motivated by opposition to the presence of the armed forces at a legitimate careers event, that raises extremely serious questions. We cannot allow intimidation, blatant discrimination or threats of violence to dictate who can participate in careers events in Foyle. People have every right to choose whom they want to work for, and the armed forces, like any other legitimate employer, should be entitled to engage with the public and promote careers opportunities without fear of attack.

People in Londonderry have the right to disagree, express their views and challenge decisions through democratic means, but there can never be justification for using violence or explosives to silence others. Those who believe that they can drag our city backwards through fear or intimidation do not speak for the overwhelming majority of people.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Middleton: My city deserves better.

Mrs Guy: A powerful survey commissioned by Caleb's Cause and published last week details the experiences of the families of children with complex needs interacting with our health trusts. It captured the experiences of 567 parents and carers of children and young people across five health and social care trusts.

At its heart, the survey asked a simple but vital question: who is holding the plan for children with complex needs? Six in 10 respondents reported significant difficulties when dealing with health and social care services. Only one in five said that they had been told clearly what would happen next. Nearly a third received conflicting information from professionals. Families spoke about delays, lost referrals and being told that their child did not meet assessment thresholds despite clear evidence of need.

What I found particularly troubling was what families said about raising concerns. Four in 10 had made a complaint to or raised an issue with their trust. More than half said either that the matter was never resolved or that they had received no response. Some chose not to complain because they feared that doing so could negatively affect their child's care. I am sorry to say that the experience of constituents whom I have supported through my office validates that concern. I have dealt with constituents who raised concerns about the care that their young person was receiving in a trust facility and subsequently felt that they were being penalised. It is hard to argue that that was not the case, yet I have little confidence that this is something that the Minister is taking seriously. I wrote to him in August about a particularly troubling example in Lagan Valley: to date, despite follow-ups, that letter remains without a response.

The trauma of interacting with our system means that many families are in a constant state of fight or flight. The system should be sensitive to the impact of its failings. Families should never feel that they have to choose between not speaking up for their child and worrying about what doing so might mean for their access to their child. To be clear, this is not about the many dedicated professionals who work in our health and social care system, but we have to be honest: not every family has that experience. Families repeatedly describe having to chase referrals, coordinate services and repeat their child's story, because nobody appeared to be holding the whole plan. That is why Caleb's law matters.

Caleb's Cause is calling for a legal right to a lifelong joined-up care plan for people with complex needs, with a named person responsible for coordinating the plan and ensuring that it follows the person through their life. It is about making sure that someone knows the child, knows the plan, knows what happens next and is responsible for making sure that the child does not fall between the cracks.

I welcome the Health Minister's commitment in a response to a question for written answer to work with Executive colleagues and review what more can be done. Families need more than commitments, however: they need to see change. The family of every child and young person with complex needs deserve to know that someone is holding their plan, someone is holding the responsibility and they will not be left to navigate this alone.

Mr Kearney: Last week, in a welcome shift on constitutional change, an Taoiseach confirmed his willingness to join the discussion about preparing for Irish unity. His recognition that a comprehensive programme of work is required is a positive development, but that must now be matched by action. He has announced an intention to propose a new body that will examine Ireland's constitutional future, including the pathway to a united Ireland. The fact is that constitutional change is fixed on the political horizon. The discussion on Irish unity is growing in momentum, and that is happening across Ireland and throughout all sections of Irish society. It is not only a nationalist or republican discussion; the contribution of the many voices from the Protestant section of our community and from within unionism is a hugely important development.

The future of Ireland belongs to everyone. It makes sense that we plan for the future in a structured forum that considers all matters that are relevant to a transition towards reunification. That process must be fully inclusive, bringing together all strands of democratic opinion, be it republican, nationalist, unionist or other, in a single citizens' assembly to discuss how to plan for a united Ireland. It is essential that the Irish Government both facilitate and play a leading role in that process. People deserve clear information about what unity can mean for their health services, pensions, jobs, public services and rights. Deeper examination of the economic opportunities, transition costs and practical challenges is also required

Sinn Féin is absolutely clear that a new constitutional settlement must provide guarantees and protections relating to civil, religious and democratic rights and all cultural traditions and identities, and that extends to the Orange tradition. A new, progressive republic is the best future for all our people. It will create the opportunity to finally break with the past and to shape a shared, prosperous and reconciled society for us all.

Mr Buckley: The staggering arrogance of Michelle O'Neill in coming to the Chamber to lecture Members of the House about their responsibilities is breathtaking in the extreme. She, alongside her Sinn Féin Ministers, wants to lecture other Members about how they behave in public life. Michelle O'Neill seems to be suffering from a case of political amnesia. It was her actions and those of her Sinn Féin colleagues — they chose to act in a reckless, lawless manner on the Garvaghy Road — that have caused deep political unease in Northern Ireland today.

I had to sit and listen to Michelle O'Neill tell the House how she has been a "First Minister for all" and how she, in her words, continues to work for everyone. Her words on her first day as First Minister are as hollow today as when they were first spoken. Tell that to veterans or those in the armed forces, given that Michelle O'Neill continues to block the implementation of the military covenant. Tell that to the victims, when Michelle O'Neill said that there was "no alternative" to the actions that took their loved ones. Tell that to those who are concerned about Sinn Féin's open-border approach to illegal immigration. Tell that to the women who are concerned about the woke nonsense that is being pushed on them day and daily by Sinn Féin, a party that, to this day, cannot even tell you what a woman is. Its policies stand exposed.

The House is meant to be a Chamber that reflects democratic opinion across Northern Ireland. If we are being honest, however, we know that unionism has a choice. Unionism must pull together. I say that in the face of open hostility from the First Minister and Sinn Féin and in the spirit of genuine cooperation. We need to work together. Unionist division is Sinn Féin's greatest friend — you can smirk all you want — and the general public know it. They want to see us work together, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that that happens.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. I call Doug Beattie. You have two minutes, Mr Beattie.

Mr Beattie: On Saturday, I attended a reunion at the regimental headquarters of the Royal Irish Regiment in Belfast. It was a reunion of a small group of people who served in Operation HERRICK 4 in Afghanistan in 2006. Those veterans served in places such as Musa Qala, Sangin, Kajaki, the Upper Gereshk Valley and Garmsir. I stood with them, extremely proud of what they did 20 years ago. Their tour ended 20 years ago this month.

I had a chance to go for a walk around the small museum there, and I walked into what is called the "Helmand Room". I was taken aback when I saw a small display that included a thing called a range card. A range card is filled out by soldiers who are on the ground overlooking the area where the enemy is so that they can pinpoint different positions. I knew about that range card because it was I who recovered it from Afghanistan, framed it and presented it to the corporals' mess of 1 Royal Irish Regiment, and it is now at the regimental headquarters. That is important because the author of the range card was Lance Corporal Luke McCulloch, who filled it out in late August 2006. On 6 September 2006, Luke McCulloch, who was from South Africa, was killed in action in Sangin. When he was killed, others were killed also: Lance Corporal Paul Muirhead, who was from Warwickshire, and Ranger Anare Draiva, who was from Fiji. Of course, Captain David Patton from County Londonderry, who was not serving with the Royal Irish Regiment at the time, was killed in Sangin as well. You could see how unique the regiment was, given the people who lost their lives in Afghanistan in that first deployment in 2006 and where they came from. They were all part of the Royal Irish Regiment: a unit in the British Army that is fiercely British but also uniquely Irish, historically and culturally.

I was proud to stand with those men at that small reunion and recount what they went through. Twenty years on, it is important for us to take time to remember their sacrifice and what they did, regardless of whether you agree with it politically. They were brave, professional men who stood up when they were asked to, and they suffer the consequences even today, 20 years later.

Mr Buckley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I beg to move

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

Mr Buckley: As Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure, I welcome the opportunity to set out the position and reasoning for seeking an extension of the Committee Stage of the Tree Protection Bill until 29 January 2027.

At the outset, I place on record the Committee's appreciation to the Bill sponsor, Mr Peter McReynolds MLA, for introducing the legislation. The Committee recognises the considerable time and effort that has gone into the development of the Bill and welcomes the constructive and collaborative approach adopted by Peter. The Committee looks forward to that continuing in the same vein as the scrutiny progresses. Peter is not only the Bill sponsor but a valued member of the Committee for Infrastructure, and I am confident that the unique perspective that he can bring will prove hugely beneficial in informing the Committee's work as the Bill progresses.

As Members will already be aware, the Bill seeks to strengthen protections for important trees and woodlands, improve enforcement arrangements, enhance replacement planting requirements and introduce new measures that relate to ancient trees and ancient and long-established woodland. The Committee supports the objective of ensuring that Northern Ireland's trees and woodlands are appropriately protected. In a region with relatively low levels of tree cover compared with many other parts of Europe, there is understandable public interest in ensuring that the legislative framework is robust, effective and fit for purpose. However, while the Bill's objective is straightforward, the Committee's initial consideration has demonstrated that the legislation itself raises a number of potentially complex operational, financial and policy issues that require careful and detailed examination.

The Committee launched its call for evidence over the summer and received a strong response from stakeholders and members of the public. On behalf of the Committee, I express thanks to everyone who took the time to respond and to those who will engage with the Committee over the coming weeks to support its scrutiny. The level of engagement reflects the importance of the subject matter and the significant interest in the Bill. The Committee is already well advanced in its evidence-gathering programme, having heard from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), departmental officials and an environmental stakeholder panel prior to recess. In the coming weeks, members expect to hear from a wide range of additional witnesses, including representatives from the construction sector, landowners, councils, the Youth Assembly and the Bill sponsor, who will have an opportunity to respond to the issues raised during the evidence sessions before the Committee begins its deliberations.

In the course of its scrutiny thus far, the Committee has identified a number of issues that will require detailed examination. Those include the practical operation of key definitions in the Bill, the proposed concept of ecosystem services, the requirement that relates to replacement planting and the specification of heavy standard trees, the resource implications of the proposed tree protection map, the operation and impact of the proposed 15-metre buffer zone around ancient and long-established woodland, and the practical implications for planning decisions and infrastructure delivery. Members are also keen to understand in greater detail the wider resource implications and costs to the public purse arising from the Bill, including the potential need for additional arboricultural experts in councils, the costs associated with monitoring, enforcement, replacement, planting and mapping requirements and the financial impacts on landowners and others who may be affected by the provisions of the legislation, should it be enacted.

The Committee also considers it important to scrutinise how the proposals interact with existing planning legislation, development needs, infrastructure delivery and property rights. Those are significant matters that deserve careful, considered deliberation at the Committee if the Assembly is to be satisfied that the Bill is proportionate, affordable, workable and capable of delivering its intended outcomes while also mitigating any unintended consequences. Should amendments prove necessary, adequate time will also be required to develop, draft and consider properly any changes arising from the evidence received.

The Committee is mindful of the time remaining in the current mandate, but I assure the House that it has carefully considered how best to balance the need for rigorous scrutiny while also being cognisant of the time remaining in the mandate for the Bill to progress through its remaining Assembly stages.

In considering an appropriate extension, the Committee agreed on 29 January 2027. The Committee is optimistic that that provides significant time in which to complete a thorough evidence programme, consider emerging issues, engage further with the Department, councils, other stakeholders and the Bill sponsor and, where necessary, develop and assess amendments. Additional meetings have already been scheduled, and Members are working through a substantial volume of evidence. The scrutiny is taking place alongside the Committee's examination of two other Bills, a significant programme of delegated legislation and the Committee's wider responsibilities.

The extension being sought reflects the Committee's commitment to ensuring that legislation with potentially far-reaching implications for planning authorities, councils, landowners, developers, public authorities and environmental protections is scrutinised thoroughly and properly before moving forward. The Committee looks forward to continuing positive engagement with the Bill sponsor and other stakeholder groups to facilitate its detailed scrutiny. In conclusion, I encourage the House to support the motion to afford the Committee the additional time that is needed in order to complete its rigorous, balanced and effective scrutiny.

That concludes my remarks as Committee Chair. I will make some short remarks in my role as DUP infrastructure spokesperson. The Bill, in principle, has unanimous support for what it is trying to achieve. The issue will be whether some of the affordability and practicality issues that departmental officials have flagged can be resolved. I intend to work closely with everyone on the Committee to ensure that we put in place legislation that delivers on its principles but is workable, is deliverable and does not hold back wider infrastructure development and proposals. In that spirit, I approach the Bill with goodwill to see whether we can have legislation that strikes those fine balances. I will be open and honest throughout, regardless of whether that balance can be struck.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Members have indicated that they want to speak.

Mr Buckley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I beg to move

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

Mr Buckley: I have moved seats, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, because my remarks may require more deliberation.

As Members will be aware, the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill was formally referred to the Committee for Infrastructure for its scrutiny on 23 September 2026. The Committee heard from the Bill sponsor on 1 July, and, in anticipation of the Bill's passing Second Stage, a call for evidence was issued over the summer recess, closing on 16 September.

Four written responses were received and 999 online responses were received via the Citizen Space portal.

The Bill provides for the removal of flags or emblems in the public interest; the definition of a "sensitive place" relating to the removal of a flag or emblem; a procedure for notification of, or giving views on, flags or emblems; the issue of the code of practice on the display of flags and emblems; an offence of obstructing the Department in the removal of a flag or emblem; and discretion for the Department to request police assistance when removing a flag or emblem. The Bill places duties on the Department for Infrastructure regarding the assessment of whether a flag or emblem should be removed, the removal of a flag or emblem if it is judged to require removal, and the administration of the notification system for flags and emblems.

The Committee heard the Department's initial views on the Bill on 21 October, and will hear more from officials on Wednesday. In summary, officials stated that, while the Department is supportive of the principles of the Bill, the Bill places responsibilities on the Department that relate to policy areas for which it is not the lead Department.

It is fair to say that there has been much debate on the Bill. It was debated over three days at Second Stage. The receipt of over 1,000 responses to the call for evidence indicates the level of public interest in the subject. Those responses have been considered in detail by the Committee and the Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe), which has provided valuable research briefings that have helped to shape our discussions. In my contribution as Committee Chair, I will not rehearse the many contending views that have been aired on the matter, suffice it to say that there is no consensus on the Bill. Indeed, there is no single view in the Committee on the Bill.

The Committee considered an extension date of 29 January in line with that of the Tree Protection Bill. That was debated at length. Ultimately, the Committee divided on the issue, with a majority agreeing with the date of 19 February to ensure that there is thorough scrutiny of the Bill and to hear more oral evidence to obtain views from stakeholders.

It should be acknowledged that bringing a Member's Bill to the House is no mean feat. The Bill sponsor should be commended for conducting it thus far. The Committee will give the Bill the thorough scrutiny that it deserves. Indeed, a range of stakeholders has been invited in the coming weeks to provide evidence to assist members in their deliberations. We also look forward to hearing from the Bill sponsor again later this month to answer queries that have arisen in the evidence so far. That concludes my remarks as Committee Chair.

I will now make some remarks as DUP spokesperson for infrastructure. At the Second Stage debate, I stated that the Bill would have significant and far-reaching unintended consequences. It is fair to say that, since the Committee started to undertake its deliberations and receive evidence from departmental officials, those views have been strengthened and enhanced. It was a lengthy session in which not all members were able to question officials, and I look forward to Mr McMurray's starting contribution on Wednesday.

Although I am speaking in a private capacity as DUP infrastructure spokesperson, I am determined to ensure, in my role as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, that we get to the very nub of the Bill, because I believe that it would have so many significant and far-reaching consequences. It is not like the Tree Protection Bill. The Tree Protection Bill has the Committee's general support in principle, while the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill does not. This Bill would have dangerous and far-reaching consequences. At every stage when a question is posed, more questions come up as a result. I know that Members listened to three long days of debate at Second Stage. However, every concern that was brought up then merits the Bill's having further, more detailed scrutiny than that proposed for the Tree Protection Bill. That is why, when Mr Stewart, my colleague in the Ulster Unionist Party, came forward with the suggestion of extending the Committee Stage, I thought that it merited support. He did not get his initial proposal through the Committee, but a compromise was reached and, ultimately, voted on and agreed, through Division, by a majority vote. That is a sensible approach.

There are far more questions on the Bill that need to be probed. I have gone through them in detail. I have talked about its being in the public interest to remove a flag or emblem:

All those notices place a statutory duty on the Department. We need to ask the questions, and we have not got the answers: who decides? Who, ultimately, decides what is offensive and what is not? Who, ultimately, will be responsible for those decisions? In everything that has been asked, I feel that we are not getting fulsome answers.

I asked a number of questions of departmental officials in our opening session with them on 21 October. When we tried to define the scope of the Bill, one comment really stood out to us all, and I put the official over it twice: how far-reaching is the legislation? How big an area does it cover? We can be fooled into thinking that the Bill covers only street lamp posts. I think that his comment at the Committee was that the Bill could cover everywhere from the street to Slieve Donard. That, essentially, is how far the reach of the Bill is.

It is fair to say that officials have engaged in a genuine spirit about how to debate the issues involved in the Bill and how to ensure that, if the Bill is enacted, the statutory duty that is placed on the Department is achievable, affordable and does not place the staff at risk. We talked about who would make the decision. We talked about what grade of official might make it and what potential risk would be placed on civil servants. When some of those decisions are so political that Members in the House cannot even agree, we will be placing a duty on our Department for Infrastructure to make deeply political decisions about everything from a flag to a billboard and perhaps a mural or an emblem. We have no definition of what some of those terms mean. Those are all important elements of the scrutiny process.

We talked about whether DFI contractors would be sent into someone else's property, because the Bill also goes way beyond the remit of DFI. The Minister did not get a chance to outline in full her position at Second Stage because, at that stage, the debate had been cut short by an Alliance motion to censor the debate. That was unfortunate. It closed down further scrutiny. I believe that the Minister would have been able to talk to some key, important points. We have since received a written briefing from the Department that probably points to one of the key concerns for the Minister and her Department. It is not for me to speak on her behalf, but the issue around the Bill's extending to street furniture way beyond the Department's remit is certainly a concern for me and, indeed, for many other Members.

I also talked about the cost to the public purse. I make no apology for saying it: I want DFI's primary purpose and responsibility to be fixing roads and street lights, to be engaged in major infrastructure projects and pushing forward our road network. We are probably facing another winter of chaos when it comes to our roads and the network's built infrastructure. Instead of debating that, we will spend endless days and hours debating legislation that, ultimately, will direct resource away from core duties of the Department to this —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Jonathan. I am listening to what you are saying. The purpose of the motion is to talk about why the Committee is asking for an extension. Even in your remarks as the DUP spokesperson on infrastructure, the purpose is not to reopen the Second Stage debate. Thank you.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I probably omitted to draw a bit of context back to that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Fair enough.

Mr Buckley: I talk about spend and time. That is essentially why the Committee has asked for a further extension. The Bill is so far-ranging. I will not go into it all, because I did so at Second Stage, but my concern is that Members of the House might feel that it is unfair in some way for the Committee to ask for a further extension in respect of this particular private Member's Bill. I want to leave everyone in the House assured that it is essential, given some of the Bill's far-reaching aspects: cost to the public purse; who has responsibility; what property it is on or not on; who decides what is offensive and what is not; how the public engage through an online forum; how can that not be easily manipulated; how a code of practice would actually work; and how it is accountable to those who put things up and those who take them down. The list is endless.

I do not know whether anyone else will speak on this particular extension, but, if so, I will probably be given the opportunity to wind on the debate, and I will pick up on any remarks at that stage. I implore Members to see that this is about appropriate scrutiny and a Committee that is taking its duty seriously. We will endeavour to do the best that we can, but I ask Members to respect the need for thorough democratic scrutiny of this private Member's Bill.

Ms Bradshaw: I oppose the motion to extend the Committee Stage to the week commencing 15 February 2027. I am aware that other Committees have been clear that the reports on Bills that have been referred to them for scrutiny have to be agreed and produced by the week beginning 8 February to allow for Consideration Stage to take place in the week beginning 15 February, Further Consideration Stage in the week beginning 3 March, and Final Stage on 15 March, just before the dissolution of the Assembly on 23 March.

For example, in setting the timescale for Claire Sugden's Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill, the Committee for the Executive Office has said that members have to agree and complete their report before the meeting on 10 February. I find it rather peculiar that, despite having my Bill since the end of June, the Committee is trying to extend its Committee Stage until way beyond the point of what is practical, yet we, as the Committee for the Executive Office, which received the Age Discrimination Bill only on 14 October, can manage to get through the scrutiny stage of that Bill's 50 clauses and two schedules, compared with my nine clauses. Those who are advocating this date know exactly what they are doing.

My Bill was presented to the Committee before the summer recess. Members will be aware that there was an immediate attempt to delay proceedings by not allowing the Committee consultation to proceed over the summer months. Thankfully, that original decision was rescinded, and my Bill was consulted on. We then had a second attempt by unionists to drag out the Second Stage debate by making the same points over and over again. Principal Deputy Speaker, you said that the debate was to be on the general principles of the Bill, not a clause-by-clause review. As the Committee Chair said, we pushed for a "closure of debate" motion, because, quite frankly, the same points were being made over and over again, and I was fearful that that would push the Bill's passage through Second Stage into another week, thereby depriving the Committee of another week of scrutiny. Needless to say, the Second Stage was completed by mid-September.

I have made it clear that I am willing to attend any Committee meetings as required. I have also offered to meet members individually or as a party group on many occasions since 7 July, most recently at the start of the Halloween recess, but, in the vast majority of instances, not one person has come back to say that they will sit down and talk about the potential impact of the clauses. This attempt to push the Committee Stage beyond the date at which the Bill could reasonably reach its Final Stage before dissolution is yet another example of an attempt to block, frustrate and delay my Bill.

It is accompanied by attempts to fill time by endlessly asking the same questions over and over again. The Bill is so important that it requires endless repetition of the same points in plenary and in Committee but not important enough to take time to discuss it directly with me, the Bill sponsor. It is clear that the Committee motion is a blatant attempt to run down the clock. We have seen it many times. Any Member who votes for an extension on this scale will be voting to kill my Bill during the mandate. Let me repeat that: any Member who votes to support the Committee's extension motion today will be voting to kill my flags Bill. I urge Members from all parties, all of whom will be familiar with the tactic, not to enable it.

Some Members may be concerned that, if the Assembly agrees to the extension, Committee Stage will be restricted to 10 November. Well, it was the DUP's Education Minister who refused extra time to the Education Committee to discuss the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill on the basis that, in his opinion, the Committee's approach was "inefficient" and that members of the Committee needed to "work harder" and:

Perhaps he had a point. To be clear, however, we have no issue with the Committee returning to the Assembly with a reasonable extension date designed to enable the scrutiny that the Chair has outlined rather than to disable it before Committee Stage ends.

Before I come on to some proposed amendments on which I have been liaising with departmental officials, off the back of commentary that they received from the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), I will read into the record that the Committee received 999 responses via Citizen Space on the Northern Ireland Assembly website. Of those, 82·58% agreed with the fundamental purpose of clause 1, which is the duty on the Department for Infrastructure to remove, in the public interest, flags and emblems under the various circumstances and categories laid out. I will round up the following percentages for your benefit, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but they are on the public record. Approximately 84% agreed that the Department should consider the sensitivity of the location of flags and emblems; between 75% and 78% agreed with the proposal for a notification procedure, and I will come on to what I propose by way of amendment on that issue; 79% agreed with the proposal for a code of practice to provide clarity and consistency in approach; 70% agreed with the inclusion of an offence for those obstructing the Department's removal of a flag or emblem, and views varied on why people were nervous about or outright opposed to that; 84% agreed with the proposal that the Department can request assistance from the PSNI; and 75% supported the clause on interpretation, which, again, I will come to.

With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, before Members are asked to vote on the Committee extension motion, I will outline some of the proposed amendments. Notably, they include clarity that the Bill will apply only to public street furniture that is maintained, controlled or owned by the Department for Infrastructure; I will seek to remove a number of specific items, such as trees or billboards. Notably, the notification —.

Mr Stewart: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am interested to hear from the Bill sponsor about the amendments, as, no doubt, we will at some stage in Committee, but I thought that we were debating the rationale for the extension of Committee Stage, not a rehash of amendments that might be proposed. I look forward to hearing about them, but I am not entirely sure that this is the debate for that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have a point, John, but I am giving Paula, as the Bill sponsor, a bit of latitude. If it becomes another Second Stage debate, as it did with the Committee Chair, I will bring it back.

Ms Bradshaw: I will come to more substantive examples of proposed amendments in a minute, but I am trying to give comfort to Members, particularly members of the Infrastructure Committee, that I have listened. I listened throughout the Second Stage debate. I have watched all the Committee sessions. Since the Bill was introduced, I have engaged on three occasions with departmental officials on their concerns, and I am seeking to bring forward proposals to address them specifically. It is about tightening up a lot of the areas that the Chair and others have spoken about not just today but on previous occasions.

With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will continue. I am proposing an amendment for regulations for Committee scrutiny and to be approved by way of draft affirmative procedure in the Chamber to set out exactly how the Department would deal with any instances of flags where complaints have been notified. I will also propose an amendment by way of regulations in the same matter in relation to the code of practice. Again, that would mean that it would have to go to community consultation and to be approved by the Infrastructure Committee and the Chamber by way of draft affirmative procedure. I propose to remove the term "offensive" — for example, I took on board people's concerns that we should not have to legislate for not being offended — and I am seeking to amend the time frames to give the Department more time to establish the relevant mechanisms. That is not an exhaustive list, but I wanted to read out those highlights because I want to assure people that I have listened to what they are saying, most notably the Department's officials. I repeat my invitation to meet any individual MLA or party, if they want to go through the issues in greater detail before I come before the Committee.

I emphasise that the Alliance Party would still be happy with an extension until 29 January, as was the recommendation from the Committee Clerk. We submitted an amendment to that effect, but the Speaker did not accept it. There is no good reason for my Bill not to get through Committee Stage well before the end of January, let alone the middle of February. If that requires the Committee, me and my support staff to be more efficient, to work harder and to focus on the job that people expect us to do, that is what we are here for.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Jonathan Buckley, Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure, to conclude the debate.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I have never had to make a winding-up speech as a Committee Chair before, so I will get the formalities over first. As the Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure, I thank the Member for her contribution. Her points are now on the record, and I am sure that the Committee will be able to deliberate on those in full in the future.

Speaking as the DUP infrastructure spokesperson, I find the Member's contribution particularly disturbing. I want to set out clearly to Members the process by which the Committee agreed the extension. There was concern from the Committee about the scope and content of the Bill. The Ulster Unionist member of the Committee, John Stewart, proposed an extension beyond 29 January, which was the extension given to the Tree Protection Bill. For obvious reasons, his proposal at the time was to extend it until 26 February. That did not have agreement. Following deliberations back and forward across the Committee, Mr Stewart put forward a proposal for 19 February. That Ulster Unionist proposal was voted for by the DUP members, the Ulster Unionist member and the SDLP member on the Committee. Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party voted against it and respectfully put their views on the record, but they also understood the huge pressure as a result of the questions proposed by the Bill. Let nobody be mistaken about why that time frame is as it is.

It is absolutely ridiculous for a Member to threaten Members and repeatedly say, "This is to kill my Bill". As Committee Chair, I simply will not let that happen. We are here to scrutinise and to take the content of the Bill seriously, and to have the Member come to the House today to talk about a range of amendments is, frankly, despicable behaviour when it comes to democratic scrutiny.

Her approach is completely different from that of her party colleague Eóin Tennyson MLA. Although he also introduced a controversial private Member's Bill, he had the courtesy to allow the House to have a full and comprehensive debate on it, including allowing a response from the Minister. Ms Bradshaw chose to censor the debate in the House. She did not want the House to hear at Second Stage what potential scope there was for amendment. She did not even want to hear the Minister's response. Members were thus denied the opportunity to place on record their concerns about the Bill. Why? It was because Ms Bradshaw did not want democratic scrutiny of her Bill. Why? It is because it falls apart at the very first point of scrutiny. Excuse the infrastructure pun, but when the rubber hits the road, the Bill falls into a pothole. For the Member to accuse Members of trying to kill her Bill is a disastrous way in which to approach scrutiny. Members are trying to scrutinise it. She compared her Bill to the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill, which has 50 clauses. I care not for the clauses but for the content, and the content in Ms Bradshaw's private Member's Bill is consequential and far-reaching.

The Member may meekly pass over clause 1, which is titled "Removal of flags or emblems in the public interest". The clause merits serious consideration, however. The language is subjective. It potentially places staff in harm's way. The Committee therefore needs adequate time not to kill the Member's Bill but to protect staff.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise that the Bill's Second Stage took much longer than any of the other recent Second Stage debates? The Bill sponsor articulated how points were being made ad nauseam. It seems as though the Member is gaslighting us by saying that it was an attempt to sideline scrutiny. Members made points repeatedly. From our perspective, it is very clear what the intention is on your side.

Mr Dickson: Read Hansard.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her intervention. It was respectful as always, and, respectfully, I disagree. [Interruption.]

Mr Buckley: Mr Dickson may snort, but I take scrutiny seriously. I say to Ms Nicholl that democratic scrutiny is important. I have been a Member of the House for coming close to 10 years now. I have seen the consequences of poorly scrutinised legislation from Departments, never mind from private Members. When a private Member brings a Bill to the House that they know would insert itself into particularly sensitive matters and have deep and long-lasting consequences, they should be prepared for scrutiny and for Members to talk about its content. I cannot dictate what the Member says in response to the Bill in her contribution, in the same way as I cannot dictate to any Member, but Members are entitled to their views.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that, at Second Stage, the Bill sponsor's response, when there was one, was often that the issue in question could be dealt with at Committee Stage? Given how many holes there are in the legislation, it should be unsurprising to the Bill sponsor that, at Committee Stage, the Committee is going to need a lot of time to do that work.

Mr Buckley: The Member makes a very valid point. That is what Committee Stage is for. In Committee, the extension was voted for by the UUP, the SDLP and the DUP. That is a fact. Look at the public record of the Division at the Committee. The extension is therefore to ensure that we get to the bottom of the Bill. Had Members taken the time to listen, they would know that what the DFI officials were not able to say to the Committee about the Bill was absolutely eye-watering and that what they were able to say was very telling.

If the Member really were interested in ensuring proper scrutiny, her party would not have moved the censor motion on the Second Stage debate. Here we are again: the Committee is getting into the weeds of the Bill, and the moment that the Member detects that the wheels are starting to fall off the Bill, she goes straight to the accusation that Members are trying to kill her Bill. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Scrutiny is what matters, and scrutiny is what the Committee will do. I will not be intimidated by that type of language.

The Department for Infrastructure official talked about the wide scope of places that clause 2 could capture. We did not even get to bottoming out forensically the scope of "Sensitive places". Clause 2(3)(d) refers to:

That could be anywhere. This Bill has landed before the Department for Infrastructure and the Infrastructure Committee, but it would affect every Department in Northern Ireland. It would affect every person in Northern Ireland, and there would be a cost to the public purse. There is one key point that shows why the Bill needs thorough scrutiny. A departmental official was asked how the Department would pay for this, and they said that the money would have to come from the existing DFI budget. We have had plenty of debates in this place about potholes, road infrastructure, the A5 and other issues. Tell me where the money would come from to pay for the flag police, which, as identified, would be in the Department for Infrastructure, and an open portal that could be manipulated for certain ends, with departmental officials expected to adjudicate on sensitive flags when the Member herself cannot even identify those flags. That is why the Committee proposes an extension.

We will work hard as a Committee to explore every clause in the Bill: make no mistake about that. We will work diligently. We will schedule additional sessions. We cannot get it wrong. We cannot fathom passing a poor private Member's Bill. Perhaps the Member's intentions are well-meaning, and I say that sincerely. However, I say clearly that I will not put my hand to anything in respect of which debate and scrutiny have been restricted and Committee members who vote for an extension are accused of killing the Bill. The Committee will do its work based on the content of the Bill.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He will know, and so should the House, that the extension date is a deadline not a target. If the Committee were to do its work quickly and efficiently, it could come to the end of its deliberations much sooner. It would be wrong to disable the Committee in its scrutiny work, and the House should say so.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. That is a very important point. It is probably one of the most undemocratic ways of conducting business on a private Member's Bill. If Departments can get legislation wrong, how on earth are we meant to believe that a private Member could not get it wrong? Should we not take seriously the views of officials? Should we not take seriously the considerable concern of Members from multiple parties? That is important. That is what the Committee will do.

Mr Boggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed.

Mr Boggs: It is astounding to listen to DUP Members talk about disabling action or things being undemocratic. I believe that the Member brought the draft legislation in good spirit. The Bill deals with very tricky issues. She has brought it in the absence of any agreement from Members opposite to deal with those issues. Had the Members opposite gone along with the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) and made some progress on that, the Member may not have had to introduce such a wide-ranging Bill.

A Member: That is different.

Mr Boggs: It is not different. You do not want to make progress through FICT. You forced a private Member to introduce draft legislation to try to deal with the issue, and then you complain about that draft legislation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. We are all starting to stray into the Second Stage debate. I ask Members to return to the subject of the motion, which is the extension of Committee Stage.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention. His points are not new; to be fair, he has reiterated them at the Committee, and I respect his right to do so. I will say this: there was no agreement on the FICT report. The Member chose to take forward a private Member's Bill. I say to the Member opposite that the Bill will fall into his party's lap. Why was there no Bill from the Minister in this regard, if his party is so serious about the matter?

I return to the extension of the Bill's Committee Stage. We have to ensure that we get this right. I can point to issues that I have with every clause in the Bill. It is refreshing to learn that I am not the only one. Members from other political parties also have issues with it. The DFI clearly has issues with the Bill. We are going to debate it, and we are going to ensure that we get it right.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Ms Bradshaw: I did not want to go through each proposed amendment, but did you hear me when I said that I had been working with departmental officials and that I will be bringing forward substantive potential amendments around the concerns that you have outlined? You seem to have ignored that point. A lot of that will be laid out when I come before the Committee.

Mr Buckley: We look forward to having the Member before the Committee because there are significant questions to be answered.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. That is one more reason for extending the deadline further. If the Member is going to table substantial amendments to her own Bill, the Committee will need time to scrutinise them.

Mr Buckley: Mr Frew makes a very valid point.

Ms Forsythe: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. I mean no offence to those who drafted it, but we need to fix what is, in my view and that of other Members, a very poorly drafted Bill. My criticism is directed towards those who support its purpose and content. Mr Frew is absolutely right. Make no mistake; if you prepare a private Member's Bill and come to the House when we are about to agree a Committee extension that has SDLP, UUP and DUP backing for democratic scrutiny purposes to tell us that you propose to table significant amendments, that surely proves that further extension of the Committee Stage is required.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Not at this point. I will give way to Ms Forsythe.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to build on that point. In her earlier contribution, the Bill sponsor said that she wants this cut short and that she is more than happy to come to the Committee in order to give it comfort on those points. Does the Member agree that it is not for her to decide what gives the Committee comfort? It is for the Committee to scrutinise the Bill, especially when a range of potential amendments are to be put forward.

Mr Buckley: The Member is absolutely right. As I stated last week when the DFI officials were giving evidence, I will give each member of the Committee as much time and space as they need to understand the intent and consequences of the Bill and to ensure that it is right.

We have seen Departments struggle with such comprehensive legislation before. I was struck in particular by clause 7 in the Bill, which concerns its interpretation. I referenced that when I spoke about the need for a Committee extension.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. Clause 7(1) states:

What is meant by a "similar medium of display"? That is not outlined in the Bill. In fact, the interpretation clause raises even more questions. That is a very basic aspect of the Bill, never mind its more complex elements. Clause 7 defines a "public place", but how extensive is that definition? What prominence should "public place" be given? Those are big things.

I asked the officials whether the trade unions had had any engagement with Department staff who, ultimately, will be placed on the front line when it comes to decision-making on those issues. They had had no such engagement. Yet, we are told, "Cut your Committee Stage short. Do not worry about thorough scrutiny. Get on with it". It may be a bad Bill, but that does not matter —.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Not just yet. I am going to go to the Member behind you, Mr McMurray.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, but before you do that, I am going to suspend this item of business.

Mr Buckley: I can finish now if you want.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has not concluded his winding-up speech. If you want to finish, go ahead.

Mr Buckley: I will have plenty of time to debate with Mr McMurray at the Committee. I propose the Committee Stage extension as in the Order Paper. Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Jonathan. I was not rushing you.

Mr Buckley: No, no.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I could have taken this after Question Time, just to put that on the record.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, Members, it is clear that there will be a Division, so the vote will take place after Question Time. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until Question Time at 2.00 pm.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I fully recognise the financial pressures that can arise following a bereavement and understand concerns about the rising cost of funerals in recent years. As the House will be aware, Northern Ireland maintains parity with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on eligibility for and the amount of the funeral expenses payment. My Department regularly engages with DWP on the support available to claimants. My officials recently raised the issue of the level of support provided under the scheme, but the Department for Work and Pensions confirmed that it has no plans to increase the amount payable.

I am aware of independent research that indicates that Northern Ireland continues to have the lowest average funeral costs of any UK region. The average cost of a funeral here is £3,105; the national average is £3,828.

For the Member's information, the number of funeral expenses payment awards has remained relatively stable in recent years, at around 2,200 each year, with an average award of approximately £1,500. It is important to note that the funeral expenses payment was never intended to meet the full cost of a funeral; rather, the scheme is designed to provide a contribution to essential funeral expenses for people on the lowest incomes.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his answer, which was very factual. As the Minister well knows, the funeral expenses payment scheme is retrospective, and many grieving low-income families sign up for a funeral before being guaranteed that they will get the payment, leaving funeral directors to cover the cost and, in many cases, with a debt that is never repaid. Is there anything that can be done to reduce the time that it takes for an award to be made from the scheme or to otherwise move it forward, given the short time within which funerals take place in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I recognise and understand the concerns that the Member expresses, particularly about the upfront costs for many people. Although the scheme makes a welcome contribution, I know that it can leave families in the difficult position of awaiting an award. I am more than happy to raise the matter with DWP officials to see what can be done to ensure either that the process is sped up or that part of the award can be made at an earlier stage in order for costs to be recovered.

Mr Wilson: Minister, you will be aware that the loss of a child is devastating for any family. What steps have you taken to assist families with funeral costs for children?

Mr Lyons: Such assistance is provided separately from the funeral expenses payment, on which we maintain parity with the Department for Work and Pensions. The child funeral fund is a Northern Ireland scheme funded and administered by my Department. In recognition of the challenges faced by parents who lose a child, I approved, through regulations amended in 2025, an increase in the child funeral fund payment. The payment was increased from £3,056 to £3,441 for funerals taking place on or after 1 December 2025. I hope that that goes some way towards helping with the burden that, unfortunately, many families face. The cost of the funeral should not be on their minds at such a terrible time.

Mr Lyons: I welcome the very strong response to the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund. My ambition is to build on the pilot by establishing a regular, longer-term programme. It may be of interest to the House to hear that the pilot attracted 835 expressions of interest seeking £28·3 million in total. To respond to that demand, additional funding from my Department, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the local growth fund has increased the pilot budget from £4·3 million to over £10 million. That gives the pilot the capacity to offer support to 311 projects that met the required standard, subject to the normal checks and grant conditions. I am grateful to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and his officials for their support in that collaborative approach, which demonstrates what can be achieved.

Work on a longer-term programme is well advanced, and I look forward to making an announcement on that in the very near future.

Mr Harvey: Thank you for that answer. Minister, it was great to see so many churches and faith-based organisations benefit from that funding. Does the Minister agree that faith-based organisations contribute immensely to our community and voluntary sector? Does he also agree that there should be a presumption in favour of their inclusion in government funding schemes in the future?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I agree. I want to ensure that the funding that is available to groups in the voluntary and community sector is available to all such groups. The faith-based and Church sector probably offers the majority of services in the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland. Churches and other faith-based organisations in every part of Northern Ireland do incredible work, especially among children and young people, but it extends beyond that to include food banks, older people's activities, social support, advice services and the provision of facilities that can be used by local community groups. Such organisations also contribute to community cohesion. They bring people together, support volunteering and provide trusted local spaces. The pilot has demonstrated the importance of that contribution. I have certainly seen first-hand many of the projects and the work that those organisations can now continue or build on. Around one in five of the successful applicants was a church. The programme should recognise that wider community role moving forward.

I am proud to have played my part in ensuring that faith-based organisations were included. I assure the Member that it is my intention that all organisations will be treated on the same basis, because, in the past, many churches were discriminated against, and that was wrong.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the apparent success of the community infrastructure fund. It appears to have been availed of by a wide range of clubs and organisations. It is probably a wider range than I initially anticipated benefiting from it. While the capital assistance to clubs and organisations in the community and voluntary sector is welcome, organisations in the sector are struggling to keep the lights on. Will the Minister therefore tell us what impact the current Budget impasse is having on the community and voluntary sector?

Mr Lyons: I welcome the Member's words. I think that he is being sincere, so I appreciate the fact that he has recognised that the scheme is helping people in all communities — to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister — in all postcodes across Northern Ireland. He will be pleased to hear that, in his council area, 20 organisations have benefited to the tune of £702,000. That will improve community facilities for people from different backgrounds who do all sorts of excellent work. Those organisations obviously scored highly in order to get through. That is to be welcomed, and it is something that I want to build on.

I am talking about capital funding. The Member is referring to resource. I am well aware of and understand the challenges that many in the voluntary and community sector face, particularly as a result of longer-term uncertainty and the uncertainty in the shorter term because of the Budget difficulties. My desire is to make sure that those organisations can continue their work. I have provided the short-term assurance of funding that is coming. Ultimately, however, we need a Budget that meets the needs of people in Northern Ireland. We need to make sure that we have a Budget that does not devastate the community and voluntary sector, because that will only put pressure on other government services further down the line. That is why I am determined to do my best to get a fair funding settlement.

Mr Lyons: My Department works with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to implement severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) arrangements over the autumn and winter period. There is ongoing engagement with a range of providers to ensure availability of accommodation to meet statutory duties, as outlined in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, and non-statutory duties such as the SWEP. When implementing those arrangements, the Housing Executive will utilise a range of options to seek to provide additional emergency capacity that can be utilised during the period in which a SWEP is called. In the absence of a confirmed Budget, the Housing Executive will fund the services that require additional payments that are at risk.

The Housing Executive supports partners in the homelessness sector such as the Welcome Organisation to deliver street outreach alongside that organisation's support hub in Belfast to assist rough sleepers. In 2025-26, I introduced the first ever ring-fenced allocation for homelessness prevention. Although departmental budgets remain to be agreed, I intend to maintain the ring-fenced allocation for strategic homelessness prevention in 2026-27.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister. I was out walking through the town at 6.30 am and saw at least five people sleeping on the streets and in doorways. In September, you announced plans to establish a homelessness commission to look at the issues in their entirety. Will you provide an update on that? Has anything gone to the Executive yet? What practical steps have been taken since September? What is going to happen in the time ahead?

Mr Lyons: It is an incredibly important issue. I have been out with organisations at night to see some of the challenges that exist. Perhaps one of the most heartbreaking aspects is that many of those who find themselves sleeping rough have tenancies. They have somewhere to go, but it is not just a housing issue. It is also about addiction, mental health and other challenges that people face. That is why it is so important that we get this right. This morning, I had a meeting about the homelessness commission, which is well progressed. The chair is in place, and there are updated terms of reference. I am pleased with the progress that has been made, and I look forward to seeing that work continue.

I want to get Executive approval for the homelessness commission. I have put a paper to the Executive, but it has not got on to the agenda. I hope that it can, because I want the issues to be taken seriously by the Executive, and, up to this point, I do not feel that they have been. In fact, in another paper with the Executive, I have asked for support not just for the homelessness commission but for the allocation of two critical budgets to my Department that would mean that we could deal with homelessness. That issue has not been on the agenda yet either. I hope that the Member will be able to use her influence within her party to make sure that we can get the support that we require for the homelessness commission and for those critical budgets so that we can deal with the issues. We need to invest in early intervention and prevention, and that is what I am committed to doing.

Ms Hunter: Last year, Minister, in the mouth of Christmas, many families were told at the eleventh hour that they had to be removed from emergency accommodation. I thank you and your team in the Department for helping me with one of the saddest cases on which I have ever worked. I saw at first hand how having nowhere to stay on Christmas Day can affect children. We are now a year on and coming up to Christmas again. What is your Department doing? What concrete examples can you provide to assure us that what happened last year will not happen again to families in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I am not in a position to be able to give guarantees about what will never happen again, because we operate in an environment in which we are constrained by many factors that are outside of our control. That is one of the reasons that I have established the homelessness commission. I have done so to make sure that we deal with the issue in two ways: first, to take the actions that we can take now; and, secondly, to put in place the required legislation. Establishing the commission has support from across the sector. It will have expertise and experience and will be able to make a real difference. It will make sure that we are dealing with the problem in the round and not just firefighting, as we have been doing for far too long.

The commission can be transformational, and we do not often get an opportunity to be so. I am impatient for change.

I hope that the Member can recognise some of the steps that we have taken to improve emergency and temporary accommodation and the efforts that I have made to deal with the issue more widely by ensuring that we have more social housing and housing across all tenures and through the affordable rent programme. I want to be in a position where we can say that none of this will ever happen again: I do not think that any Minister will ever be in that position, but I want to make sure that we do everything we can, and there is a body of work that demonstrates that we are doing so.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the update on the 600 homes to be purchased by the Housing Executive for temporary accommodation, which you announced last year. Minister, one of the quickest ways to prevent a large number of people from becoming homeless is a no-fault eviction ban: will you commit to implementing a no-fault eviction ban before the end of the mandate or before this place collapses? Otherwise, it will be like putting water in a bucket full of holes.

Mr Lyons: I am pleased that we have made good progress on the 600 homes. A number of associated issues and concerns came up, including how the Treasury would view the purchase of those homes. Significant work has been done, and we will be able to move forward on that imminently, which will help.

I have no issue in principle with a no-fault eviction ban. However, from looking at experiences elsewhere, we are aware that a ban would require some exemptions. There are, I think, 14 exemptions to the ban in Scotland. I am happy to look into a no-fault eviction ban, but I hope that the Member will appreciate that that would not deal with the fundamental issue that many people face, which is the overall lack of homes. We need to increase our supply. The big problem with housing in Northern Ireland has been that we do not have enough homes in the first place, and that is what my focus is on. As the Member will have seen from the other measures that we have taken, we will certainly take other actions where we can.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, there were issues with SWEP last year. It was not about the money; it was about the communication. Will there be better communication when SWEP is activated this year so that, in an emergency, we make the most effective use of the temporary accommodation?

Mr Lyons: The Member will appreciate that SWEP is an emergency service delivered in emergency conditions. It is demand-led, which means that it can be challenging. The Housing Executive's officers and voluntary partners deal with unpredictable demand often in difficult circumstances and with a client group that, as I have said before, faces complex issues. On rare occasions, SWEP providers can face capacity and logistical challenges. However, everyone who remains in contact will be offered accommodation, following a thorough assessment of all the relevant circumstances. We had a problem on 4 January this year because of those capacity and logistical challenges.

I assure the Member that the staff who are in place always do their best. It does not always work out as we would like, but I have confidence in the people who provide the service and in their determination to make sure that the service is provided properly. The protocol was activated on 10 occasions last winter, and most of those who required help got help. I want to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks, but sometimes it is just not possible to avoid that.

Mr Lyons: I did not receive an invite from Homeless Connect to attend the Northern Ireland homelessness conference. Officials got an invite, but they were not able to attend on the day.

Mr Boggs: I thank the Minister for his answer. Obviously, it is disappointing that the officials were not able to attend the conference. I am sure that you will know that the homelessness sector and Homeless Connect in particular have been talking about the homelessness commission that you are bringing forward. They have been critical at times, but it is welcome that it is working with your Department. Miss Hargey has already asked a question on this, but can you give us a specific update on your engagement with the sector across the North and with the sector in the Twenty-six Counties, given that, obviously, homelessness is a cross-border issue that we need to tackle on an all-island basis?

Mr Lyons: I had a meeting this morning on the issue, and the Member will be pleased to hear that Homeless Connect was represented. That will continue, because I genuinely believe that, if we want to deal with the issue, we need to have everybody on board. We also need to have its expertise and experience, which is why I am so keen that it is included. Therefore, I assure the Member that it will continue and that all best endeavours will be put into ensuring that everybody is on the same page and working collectively to deal with the issue.

In relation to engagement with partners in the Republic of Ireland, if there is something there that can be done and if there is useful learning and coordination, I am more than happy to make sure that that happens. However, ultimately, it is a problem that we face when dealing with our citizens here and ensuring that support is in place. I will work with the sector and with those in Northern Ireland to ensure that we deal with the issue because the situation right now is unacceptable.

Mr Kingston: I commend the Minister for initiating the homelessness commission. It is an important initiative, and it is disappointing to hear Sinn Féin being negative towards it. Can the Minister advise us on how the commission is progressing?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. The Member will be aware of the two elements to the homelessness commission. The implementation panel is expected to commence its work later this month. The first meetings will take place by the end of November, and, reflecting the broader scope and longer time frame, the implementation panel will begin work ahead of the legislative reform panel, which is expected to convene in January. My officials are taking forward the practical arrangements necessary to establish both panels, including the appointment of members and the finalisation of governance arrangements. That will ensure that both panels are in a position to begin their work within the planned timescale.

It would be useful for us to have Executive support for that. I have the paper with the Executive. I am not sure why they have not proposed a date to discuss and agree it, but I hope that we will be in that position soon. I hope that it is not the same as it is for the other papers that I am waiting for. One is funding for the social housing development programme, and the other is a critical paper in relation to the Department's allocation for money for homelessness. I hope that the parties will agree to that so that progress can be made.

Mr Lyons: I will take the opportunity to pass on my condolences and thoughts and prayers to Ciara's family, whom we remember today in this place. Ciara had incredible success on the track. I know that it has been said many times already, but she was a genuine inspiration to many people in Northern Ireland and beyond. I hope that she will continue to inspire the next generation to get involved and follow in her footsteps. That will be a lasting legacy.

I was pleased to recently announce £200,000 of funding for the Mary Peters Trust, in partnership with Sport NI, aimed at helping talented local athletes to access the support that they need to progress towards future Commonwealth, Olympic and Paralympic Games. Support for Northern Ireland athletes preparing for 2028 is provided through Sport NI. Its athlete award programme provides a mechanism to support athletes tracking towards the games who do not receive athlete funding from either Sport Ireland or UK Sport, with the ability to consider exceptional circumstances where appropriate.

The chief executive of Sport NI has advised that its main performance investment will place an increased emphasis on supporting athletes further down the performance pathway, helping to develop those with the potential to progress towards senior international performance. Where there is an evidenced gap in support at senior national level, Sport NI may also consider support where appropriate. The Sport NI Sports Institute focuses on improving sport performance through the provision of science, medicine and programme support to national governing bodies.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much. I follow the Minister's remarks about Ciara.

I will declare an interest. As the Minister well knows, my interest is swimming; that will not come as a surprise to you. One question that we have is about Sport NI's movement towards aspiring athletes rather than athletes who are already in the performance network. How can we ensure that the athletes who need that support to get to Los Angeles, in particular — I am talking specifically about some of our absolutely brilliant swimmers — get the support that they need, bearing in mind that they fall between the stools of funding from Swim Ireland, which is not necessarily focused towards swimmers from Northern Ireland, and the GB Olympics team, which obviously does not come within that realm?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question and for highlighting that. I know about his interest: I have met him down at Larne Swimming Club. I do not think that he is a swimmer himself: is he thinking of Olympic glory in a few years' time?

Dr Aiken: I spent 32 years in the Royal Navy, Minister. I have done a lot of swimming.

Mr Lyons: He has done a lot of swimming. I do not know whether that is something that someone in the Royal Navy should be doing. Something has gone terribly wrong if you are in the Royal Navy and you need to swim a lot. I will leave him to explain that another time.

I hope that I have outlined the support that is available for those who fall between those stools. As I said, where there are exceptional circumstances and Sport NI can step in and help, we want to ensure that that can happen for those who are on that elite pathway. It is important, however, that, if we are looking towards the future and want to ensure that we have those athletes of the future, we invest in grassroots sport now. Where else will our future athletes come from? That is why I launched the Olympic legacy fund, with £2 million being allocated for 2026-27. It was launched at Larne Rugby Club. It will continue to support grassroots clubs. It is great to see the uptake of that funding across Northern Ireland. The crowdfunding element, in particular, has been a fantastic success. You see communities coming together to raise that extra bit of funding.

Of course, the Member will be aware of the investment of almost £30,000 to buy new equipment for Larne Swimming Club in my constituency. I hope that that gives him some encouragement.

Mr Honeyford: I share the thoughts that the Minister expressed about Ciara and the impact of her loss on our sporting world and our society as a whole.

Sporting bodies tell us all the time that they have been let down when it comes to funding. You talked about Sport NI's priorities: can you confirm how much of your Department's funding, excluding National Lottery funding, has been allocated to preparation for the Los Angeles games in 2028?

Mr Lyons: I do not have exact figures for that, but I am happy to see whether I can get them for the Member if he would like to request them. I suppose that there will be different pots and different elements to that and different ways in which we can provide that support. Some of that money will not be able to be broken down in that way, but we will see whether we can find that information for him. I hope that he sees my commitment to sport more widely, not just through the Olympic legacy fund, which I have already mentioned, but through the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund, which many sporting clubs have been able to benefit from as well.

Mr Robinson: Can the Minister detail for the House how many clubs were successful in the 2025-26 Olympic legacy funding programme and whether any steps are being taken to ensure that that fund will be available on a yearly basis?

Mr Lyons: Yes. Through that £2·136 million investment, 81 clubs across Northern Ireland, representing a broad range of sports, benefited from support under the programme last year. As I have said, the crowdfunding model has proven highly effective, generating more than £1 million in community contributions and leveraging the overall value of those projects to in excess of £3 million. It has been a huge success for many sporting organisations that too often fall through the cracks when it comes to government support. I will work to ensure that a longer-term programme is in place so that we not only celebrate the legacy of our sporting successes but ensure that we prepare for the successes of the future.

Mr Lyons: The new arts policy is being developed within the wider heritage, culture and creativity programme. The public consultation to inform the arts policy is expected to launch in the week commencing 16 November 2026. As the Member will be aware, the programme also includes a new public library policy, a new museums policy and a new historic environment policy. I am pleased with the progress to date, and it remains my expectation that all four new policies that form part of the programme will be published in the early part of 2027.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions, and it is Mr Durkan to go first. Mr Durkan, you were looking better on Saturday than you are today, I have to say.

Mr Durkan: Well, at least I can take my mask off, Mr Speaker.

Mr Lyons: I certainly concur with Mr Durkan. I am more than happy to look at that and to explore the ways in which we can honour her and ensure that she has a lasting legacy. However, Ciara has already provided her own legacy in the way in which she conducted herself on and off the track and inspired so many people. I doubt that we will be able to match that in any way, but I am more than happy to work with others in due course to find a way to ensure that that legacy and her life can be honoured.

Mr Durkan: Ciara was a trailblazer on the track, cruelly cut down in her prime. She leaves a legacy that will not be forgotten. That much is true. However, given her unique impact, would the Minister consider the establishment of a dedicated Ciara Mageean legacy fund aimed at upgrading infrastructure and supporting, in particular, young female athletes? Perhaps, at the same time, he could explore how we can use sports clubs as hubs to promote the vital cancer message that she spent her last months so bravely promoting.

Mr Lyons: I concur with everything that the Member has said. Despite some of the differences that we might have, I hope that he has seen the commitment that I have to sport and to grassroots sport in particular. I hope that he understands that that is why I have brought forward the Olympic legacy fund and the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund and have pushed funds that have lain dormant for some time. I am happy to meet him if he would like to further discuss an appropriate way to honour Ciara's legacy.

Mr Lyons: Not at this time. We are keen to make sure that we get a proper understanding of that. Unfortunately, it is the case that that information is normally relayed to the Department of Finance. It is then for the Minister of Finance and the Executive to agree Budget allocations after that. I am often disappointed at the way in which some of that funding works out or does not work out. The Department for Communities is a major loser when it comes to Barnett consequentials. Sometimes, that is in the area of culture; sometimes, in sport; and, sometimes, in how we deal with issues such as benefit fraud. A number of questions have been raised as a result of the Budget. We continue to work with colleagues in the Department of Finance and Whitehall to see what that means for Northern Ireland.

Dr Aiken: Thank you for your reply, Minister. It is clear that there is a big push to build more social and affordable housing across the United Kingdom. As an integral part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland should be very much part of that. The Minister will be aware that, when it comes to doing that, one of the most fundamental issues is the water and sewerage infrastructure. We understand that the Department of Finance has not been very forthcoming, but will the Minister outline any conversations that he has had with the Department for Infrastructure about what it is doing to fix that problem?

Mr Lyons: Yes, there is regular engagement. I regularly impress on the Minister for Infrastructure and her officials the importance of dealing with waste water issues, because they are a barrier to the growth that we want to see in housebuilding in Northern Ireland. We need to make sure that, first, we have the funding in place in order to build homes. That is why I am disappointed that, although the Executive agreed a target for building social homes, the funding for that has not been forthcoming. I understand the difficult financial situation in which we find ourselves, but, if the Government are providing more finance for housebuilding in England, that should also come through to Northern Ireland.

I have not, however, just waited for more money to come. We are taking action now to make it easier to build homes. That is why we are looking at the design guide for social homes to see what is not necessary, what does not add value to homes and what adds costs. It is also why I have looked at the housing association grant to see how we can stretch the amount of money that we give to housing associations further and ask them to do a little bit more. Yes, we need more funding, but we also need to look at other ways to make the money that we have go further. That is the work with which I have been involved, but, at the same time, I will not give up on getting that extra cash.

Mr Lyons: I am happy to use all tools that are available to me to make sure that we get the right outcome, whatever the issue is. The Member introduced a Bill that will put pressure on the Department of Education, because no additional funding will go to that Department to pay for it. Those issues should be looked at more widely as part of the wider anti-poverty work that we are doing. I want us to look at that to see what is the most effective thing that we can do in a time of constrained finance. Is that Bill a good tool? Is it the best way to support families, or does that intervention simply put more pressure on school budgets? As a party, we will use any and all means that are at our disposal to make sure that we get the best outcomes.

Mr Baker: As the Minister who is responsible for poverty policy in all communities across the North in respect of all children, 90,000 of whom the Bill will support, you are saying that you will use all tools. That includes a veto being used not by the majority in the House but by unionists to stop support for those children, because you have thrown your toys out of the pram. Are you seriously going to do that as the Minister for Communities? Is that what you are standing there and telling people today?

Mr Lyons: The Member takes a very different approach to those issues than I do. The Member has not engaged with the wider anti-poverty work. I take a different approach. Tackling poverty in Northern Ireland is not just about giving people more money but about ensuring that we help them. I want to put the funding that we have into longer-term measures that will actually make a difference by helping people to earn and save more. The Member has been told repeatedly about what the Bill will do and about its cost implications. He has not sought to work with others. He has tried to ram the legislation through without a proper consideration of all the issues. I wish that he had taken a different approach.

Mr Lyons: I want to help everybody in Northern Ireland access careers that work for them. It is an absolute shame and disgrace that the council took that decision. At its heart is prejudice towards and intolerance of people with whom the council disagrees. I understand that a job in the armed forces may not be for everybody, but why should people be able to decide that they will not allow others to hear about the opportunities that exist? It does not make sense. It is discriminatory. As I said, a deep-seated intolerance is at the heart of it all. We hear so much about equality, equality of opportunity and the ability for everybody to be respected. How often have we heard that in the House, especially from those on the Benches opposite? When it comes to it, however, and when the real test is there, they fail. As I said, that is because of intolerance and bigotry, which was at the heart of that council's decision.

Mrs Middleton: Minister, I welcome your confirmation that the Department will not bow to such intolerance. Do you see the sickening irony that, less than 24 hours before nationalist councillors voted to ban our military from such events, British Army bomb disposal experts put their lives on the line to defuse a viable terrorist device at a local hotel? Is it not time that we stood up for our servicemen instead of accommodating those who seek to censor them?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right. I could not agree with her more. All the Members opposite are looking down. They should be ashamed of the decision that their colleagues took. The Member is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the British Army was protecting the people of the north-west and the people of Northern Ireland through the actions that it took, and she is right to point out that, less than 24 hours later, councillors said, "It is OK for the army to protect us, but it is not OK for people to hear about the opportunities that exist", and that —

Mr Gildernew: Bloody Sunday.

Mr Lyons: — is a shame and a disgrace.

The Committee Chair is hectoring from a sedentary position. All that I will say is this: bigotry, intolerance and prejudice are at the heart of his party's decision.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, you are glossing over the British Army's record in Derry.

Mr Lyons: We have ensured that help is available from all the jobs and benefits offices across Northern Ireland so that those who do not feel comfortable applying online will get the support that they need. Jobs and benefits offices will be happy to help at any stage of the process.

Mr McGuigan: Yes, Minister, I understand that help will be provided by jobs and benefits offices, but providing help with applying addresses only part of the problem. The Department's guidance states that activating the voucher requires an email address and a mobile number. Will you therefore explain precisely how someone with neither can activate or spend their voucher?

Mr Lyons: As I said, we have ensured that that help will be available to such households. If people go to their local jobs and benefits office, help can be provided. If the Member has additional issues or queries, we are here to help. I do not want to prevent anybody from getting their card. We fought hard to put the system in place, and it took a very long time to put everything in place. I said at the time that it was not the most simple or straightforward way in which to do things. It would have been far easier if the Government had provided direct relief to those affected by cutting fuel duty and ensuring that the support was available. We have, however, put the system in place, and I do not want to stop anybody from getting the support that they need. If there are particular issues with which the Member is unable to help his constituents, I ask him to take them directly to the Department. I am happy to provide any and all help that we can.

Mr Lyons: That is right. The working-age population benefits bill has gone from around £57 billion 10 years ago to over £127 billion today. That is simply not sustainable, and we need to tackle it. It is one of the biggest issues that we face as a society. It is not just bad for the economy, for government finances or for all the people who go out and work hard every single day and are paying for the system; it is actually bad for those who are in receipt of such benefits. It is not good for people to be out of work or to not have the opportunities and hope that comes from employment. I am working with Alan Milburn on the work and well-being commission so that we can tackle that issue properly and help to lift people out of poverty.

Mrs Dodds: The Chancellor also talked about a crackdown on benefit fraud. What is happening in Northern Ireland in that regard, and is there a potential gain and clawback for Northern Ireland if we can identify benefit fraud?

Mr Lyons: The Chancellor announced a package of anti-fraud measures, including the recruitment of more than 2,000 specialist anti-fraud staff for DWP. A direct read-across to Northern Ireland would mean over 60 members of staff. That would help us to save millions and millions of pounds every single year. I hope that we will get the Barnett consequentials for that and that money is put towards that important work. Unfortunately, Sinn Féin has blocked cracking down on fraud, both through the parity Bill that is being brought in at Westminster and through a paper that would help us to tackle the issue. We need to tackle the welfare bill overall, but surely we can all agree on tackling fraud and tackling those who are not entitled to benefits but are cheating the system to get them.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Further education colleges are operating within a contingency planning allocation equivalent to 94% of last year’s allocation. Colleges have statutory responsibilities towards learners with special educational needs or disabilities, including the requirement to make reasonable adjustments. Those statutory protections remain in place and provide an important safeguard for disabled learners. My Department continues to provide support for the colleges through the additional support fund, which helps colleges meet the additional costs associated with supporting students with learning difficulties and disabilities and is managed by the colleges within their overall funding allocation. I fully recognise the pressures that our colleges face and the importance of protecting support for learners, and I continue to press for a fair and sustainable funding settlement that properly supports our colleges and their learners.

Following my statement last June announcing proposals to improve the opportunities and support for school leavers with special educational needs, significant groundwork has been done. That has included the completion of an Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) review of SEN provision in further education; development of new careers guidance and resources; and improvements to data sharing between Departments, including enhancing the service-level agreement between the Education Authority and Careers Service to support smoother transitions for learners with additional needs.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, in June 2025, you made a ministerial statement that outlined your ambition to ensure more provision of support and courses in our FE colleges for those with special educational needs and disabilities. Following that, the ETI produced two reports with recommendations. However, given the cuts that our FE colleges now face, can you be specific about the impact of those cuts on those with SEND?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I outlined in my main answer, the colleges are operating within contingency allocations but still have responsibilities to their learners with SEN. The Member spoke about the ETI reports that were published in August. The reports showed that colleges provide inclusive and supportive learning environments, but they also highlighted a number of areas for improvement. The findings are consistent with the direction of travel that was proposed in the statement of June 2025. We have a dedicated post-school SEN transformation further education team in the Department, and we are taking forward a programme of work arising from those evaluations and the wider review of post-school provision. The initial activity of that group has focused on identifying key work strands and commencing the development of a work plan to prioritise future activity. I know that the Member will appreciate and understand that multi-year investment will be needed to deliver the scale of reforms required, which is one of the reasons why we, as an Executive, are continuing to make the case for a sustainable and fair funding settlement that ensures that we can invest in our public services where they need it, and in particular to support our young people with SEN.

Mr Delargy: Minister, you have touched on quite a bit of this already, but will you go into a bit more detail on what you have done since your ministerial statement in June 2025 to improve post-school opportunities and support for young people with SEND?

Dr Archibald: As I said, since the statement, progress has been made across a number of areas to improve post-school opportunities and outcomes for young people with SEN, including strengthening career support and information for young people and their families, progressing inclusive apprenticeship pilots, improving the mapping of post-school provision, and strengthening our evidence base through ETI evaluations. My Department has also led cross-departmental work to improve SEN data sharing and transition planning. A collaborative bid has been made to the public-sector transformation fund to pilot new approaches to supporting school leavers with SEN. The bid has been recommended as fundable, with confirmation subject to the Budget process.

That work is intended to support a more coordinated approach to transitions to adulthood. As I said to Mrs Guy, delivering the required scale of reform and improvement will require substantial and sustained investment. While work is under way to progress those measures within the existing budgets, the availability of the additional investment, including through the transformation fund, will be critical to the pace and scale with which we intend to deliver the wider reform.

Ms Forsythe: The cuts to further education hit much more than the core education estate, including apprenticeships, as the Minister outlined. I welcome her comments about the shared bid and the move to data sharing. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee through the skills report, and I know that that was a key recommendation.

I want to ask the Minister for a little bit more detail about the transformation bid that she mentioned. Is it from the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy, or does it also include Health? One theme that came through our deliberations was that, in the interests of the young people coming through, a whole-of-government approach is needed to break down siloed working.

Dr Archibald: We are collaborating with the Department of Education and others, including Health and Communities. I think that Infrastructure is part of it as well, because transport is a key element of support for young people with SEN. If the Member wants to write to me, I would be happy to share a bit more detail about that.

As I said, the bid to the transformation fund has been recommended for funding. Obviously that will be subject to the budget coming along to support it, but I view this as absolutely vital work for supporting our young people with SEN and ensuring that they get the opportunities that they deserve.

Mr Nesbitt: Has the Minister given the colleges any direction with regard to groups of students or categories of skills that she would like to see protected from any potential cuts?

Dr Archibald: The colleges are continuing to work to deliver against the strategic priorities of the Department and the further education sector's dual mandate, which is to support economic growth and to support the promotion of social inclusion. It is important that our further education colleges be inclusive in supporting learners through their various supports. I have not directed the colleges to protect any particular category of skills or group of students, but the colleges have to continue to meet their statutory obligations, which include supporting our young people with SEN. They have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for students with special educational needs or disabilities.