Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 September 2026

1,049 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It is my privilege to highlight the invaluable work of Inspire Wellbeing and the important role that supported accommodation plays in helping people to live well and independently in our communities. Inspire provides a wide range of services for people experiencing mental ill health, addictions, intellectual disabilities and autism. It provides practical, person-centred support at different stages of people's lives.

I recently had the pleasure of visiting Inspire's Altigarron Court service in west Belfast and, most important, of meeting some of the people who call it "home". It was brilliant to hear from the residents about what living there means to them. It means having their own home and independence, being part of their community and knowing that support is there when they need it. The exceptional work that is carried out by the staff and the positive relationships that they have built up with the residents were clear to see. The staff's support plays an important role in empowering people to live independently with dignity and confidence. That demonstrates what supported accommodation can achieve for people. It is about much more than providing a roof over someone's head: with the right home and the right support, people can improve their well-being, live in recovery and live fulfilling lives in their communities.

Supported accommodation benefits the wider health service, too, as it can and will help people to remain in their community, avoid unnecessary stays in hospitals, deliver better outcomes for those individuals and reduce pressure on our health service, which will ultimately deliver savings to the public purse. That is particularly important as we look towards reforming our health service and there is talk about shifting more care into the community. Supported accommodation should be recognised as a key enabler of that shift.

Figures that I received in response to a recent question for written answer showed that there were 8,446 new social housing starts between 2021 and 2026 but just eight out of those almost 8,500 homes were categorised as supported housing for mental health needs. Of those, only two, including Altigarron Court, were new builds, whereas the other six were just improvements. That is only two out of almost 8,500 new builds spanning the years since 2021.

There is a real opportunity to build on the excellent services that are already being delivered to ensure that supported accommodation is recognised as a key part of our future health and social care system. I finish by thanking the staff at Inspire Wellbeing for the work that they do every day with the people who live in their community and in supported living. I thank particularly the residents of Altigarron Court for welcoming me into their home and sharing their experiences with me.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

The news brought to the Chamber yesterday by the Health Minister, Robbie Butler, on Daisy Hill Hospital maternity services has been met with great concern and great annoyance in the wider community. The public's reaction should come as no surprise, and it is well warranted. Daisy Hill is a much cherished local hospital serving a wide and very rural population in Newry and Armagh and south Down. Personally, I had a very good experience of the hospital in preparation for surgery last year, and I cannot praise the hard-working staff there enough.

Despite the good reputation of the hospital and its staff, there has been a theme over a number of years whereby various vital services in the hospital have been temporarily suspended. Temporary then became permanent, with services removed and undertaken elsewhere. Each one of those instances has brought the same public response: annoyance and a great sense of betrayal. People want to see services retained at Daisy Hill, and that includes the maternity services. Daisy Hill's maternity services are a vital part of the healthcare offering at the hospital, and the many people in my constituency and, indeed, neighbouring constituencies want to see that important service strengthened, not weakened to the point of removal.

Minister Butler's commentary suggesting that, if the situation does not change by early November, services will relocate to Craigavon, presents him with a real and pressing challenge. Instead of running down the clock, will the Minister and the trust redouble efforts to ensure that the necessary resources are secured to enable the services to continue at Daisy Hill? That is the ask of the staff and of the wider community. The implications for Craigavon are, of course, also considerable. I feel that the knock-on impacts have not been fully considered should a course of action be pursued that sees the service relocated there.

I am also deeply concerned about the confusion that the announcement has sown in the hospital and in the community. The announcements yesterday created more questions than answers. Indeed, the language used by the trust's chief executive, when he said that it was "more likely than not" that maternity services would move from Daisy Hill but that it was "not quite a done deal" in a way captures the attitude of senior decision-makers at the trust. That approach lacks a demonstrable determination to find solutions. I am not convinced by yesterday's reports that there is a firm willingness to find a solution in the short time available.

The words of Eddy Curtis of Save Our Services Daisy Hill reflect a common sentiment:

"Why does it always have to be Daisy Hill?"

Why, indeed, does it always have to be Daisy Hill? Expectant mothers expect clarity, and it is important that Mr Butler MLA provides it. That is his challenge. This is a resourcing issue. It is not totally insurmountable, and I urge all those with authority to ensure that that important maternity provision remains on the site. The clock is ticking.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Over the weekend, I was contacted about an inspirational young woman taking on the Belfast Half Marathon to raise money for two wonderful causes in Lisburn: Live Life Well-Being Centre and Sensability. Massive congratulations to Anita Rydout for completing the challenge and raising thousands of pounds for her chosen charities in the process.

Let me tell you a little about Anita and why her achievement really stands out. Anita has autism and severe global developmental delay. She was assessed and diagnosed by the age of four, and at that time the prognosis for the future was uncertain. A school placement with Parkview Special School, followed by her adult placement at the Live Life Well-Being Centre, both in Lisburn and both wonderful, have helped Anita to thrive. Her journey to the Belfast Half Marathon started as a volunteer at Wallace parkrun, and that led to her taking part herself, with specialist resources and support to help her. She is now a member of Jog Lisburn Running Club.

Community, kindness and people believing in Anita have helped her to achieve something really remarkable. Alma from Caleb’s Cause describes Anita as her hero and as an inspiring young woman who refused to be defined by what others thought she could not do. In many ways, Anita embodies what Caleb's Cause is fighting for: ensuring that young people with complex needs have the right support, encouragement and opportunities to realise their potential. When we give people those opportunities, they can surprise us, inspire us and show us how much they are capable of.

Congratulations again, Anita. You are genuinely an inspiration.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I raise the issue of the continuing pressure facing parents, providers and workers across our childcare sector. At the DUP conference at the weekend, Gavin Robinson pointed to childcare as one of that party's biggest successes in government. He said that, because of the investment delivered by the Education Minister, mothers and fathers have been able to go back to work and families have more money left at the end of the month. That is not what I hear from families across this place.

Yes, the childcare subsidy scheme is a welcome support — nobody disputes that — but childcare costs continue to rise. In April 2024, when we got back, parents were paying £61·50 a day for childcare; today, they pay close to £75 a day. That is an increase of 22% over the past two years. That is not a big success of government; it is a failure of government. For a family needing childcare five days a week, that is an enormous amount simply to allow both parents to go to work. We are supposed to be further ahead by now.

The early learning and childcare strategy committed to increasing the childcare subsidy scheme from 15% to 20% from April of this year. We are in September, and that increase has still not happened. Therefore, we need to be careful about claiming victory on childcare. I still speak to mothers who are deciding whether they can afford to go back to work after having a child and to parents who are reducing their hours because the cost of childcare means that working does not make financial sense.

Providers are struggling too. Their costs are also going up with the cost of living. Small providers find it increasingly difficult to make the numbers add up, and we continue to lose experienced childcare workers because they earn much more elsewhere and there are not enough opportunities to progress.

That is not a sustainable childcare system by any stretch of anybody's imagination. The SDLP has consistently argued that we need to be much more ambitious. We have set out our childcare guarantee on how we could halve childcare costs by 2030 and ensure that no family is expected to pay more than they can reasonably afford.

It cannot be just about reducing bills for parents. We also need to properly fund providers and build a childcare workforce in which people can earn a decent wage, develop their skills and see a future for themselves. Childcare is economic infrastructure, and it affects the entire economy.

I welcome the progress that has been made, but the Minister needs to produce a real childcare strategy. What we have is not a childcare strategy; it is not what was promised. Parents pay more today than when the institutions came back. That is a failure across government.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I raise the growing pressure facing the social care workforce delivering care in our communities. Every day, those workers provide an invaluable service, looking after our older people and those with complex disabilities and providing vital support to their families. Their work allows thousands of people to remain independent, live with dignity and, importantly, remain safely in their own homes. As we seek to reform our Health and Social Care system and provide more care closer to home, that workforce will become ever more important, yet social care workers are among the lowest-paid workers in that system, with no indication of when they will get the real living wage that the Minister has promised them.

Yesterday, we heard in news reports that the price of diesel has risen to over £2 a litre. That is beyond the means of most carers in the community, particularly in rural areas such as mine in Mid Ulster. People are suffering because of the reckless actions of Donald Trump in joining Israel in launching its war against Iran. That has had consequences for workers and families here.

Those consequences are particularly acute for some of our lowest-paid social care workers, who have no choice but to use their cars to travel between the homes of the people whom they support. While those workers are being asked to absorb higher costs, we must ensure that energy and oil companies are not allowed to use instability in global markets as an opportunity to protect or increase profits at the expense of ordinary people.

When prices rise, it cannot always be workers and families who are expected to carry that burden. There must be transparency on how increases are passed on at the pumps, and the British Government must ensure that global instability is not used to justify excessive or unfair increases at the pumps. Our MLA Declan Kearney has been clear in his statement today about the news that oil companies have quadrupled their profits. We are talking about billions of pounds: what a difference that could make across the world in tackling poverty. It is grotesque that, at a time when they are making those kinds of profits, our care workers are struggling to provide care to the most vulnerable. The irony of listening to the news this morning was to hear that the British Government's solution to assisting in the instability of access to fuel is to refuel war planes for Saudi Arabia. They cannot help to put fuel into the cars of care workers but can provide fuel for war planes. That just shows that it is policy.

The Health Minister needs to give an update on the introduction of the real living wage for the independent social care workforce and what measures he is considering to address increased fuel and travel costs for staff delivering care in our communities. It is not always about more money. Sometimes, it is about how we use the resources that we have. The Health Minister, like the rest of us, knows well —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Time is up.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— that the cost of keeping people in hospital is astronomical.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the announcement by Gordon Lyons, the Minister for Communities, of a £750,000 investment in the musical instruments programme. That is a significant and practical commitment to music, culture and community life across Northern Ireland. The programme is open now, meaning that bands, musical groups, schools and professional musicians can apply immediately for support to purchase good-quality instruments.

The scale of the impact of the programme is already clear. During the 2025-26 period, more than £1·1 million was awarded to over 90 bands, 12 groups and 28 individual musicians across Northern Ireland. That support enabled organisations and performers to replace ageing equipment, improve the quality of their instruments and create new opportunities for people to participate in music.

In South Antrim, we are fortunate to have many talented musicians and dedicated bands, which play an important role in their communities. Of course, we have many genres of band, and they provide much more than entertainment. They offer tuition, discipline and friendship. They give children and young people the opportunity to develop a skill, grow in confidence and become part of a team. Much of that work is sustained by volunteers, who give freely of their evenings and weekends. They teach beginners, organise events, raise funds and ensure that musical traditions are passed from one generation to the next.

Instruments are expensive, however, and their cost can prevent smaller organisations or young musicians from reaching their potential, so the Minister's investment is welcome and timely. It recognises the contribution that music makes to community cohesion, social inclusion and economic regeneration. It also ensures that support extends across a wide range of musical activity. The band strand is open to formally constituted accordion, brass, flute, pipe, wind and concert bands. A second strand supports professional and non-professional performing groups, including choirs, orchestras, community music groups, musical societies, schools and youth groups. A third strand provides support for individual professional musicians. That broad approach is important. It ensures that the programme supports our musical heritage while encouraging participation, developing skills and helping talented performers to progress professionally.

I commend the Minister for securing that £750,000 investment and ensuring that applications are now open. It is another clear example of DUP Ministers delivering practical support for individuals and organisations that enrich communities across Northern Ireland. I strongly encourage eligible bands, groups, schools and musicians in South Antrim and, of course, further afield to visit the Arts Council of Northern Ireland's website and apply before the deadline of 15 October.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Just last week, the remuneration board announced that it proposes to increase the basic MLA salary from £67,200 to £69,216 at the beginning of the next mandate, potentially to be followed by annual increases of up to 3% a year thereafter. The announcement comes just months after MLAs' salaries rose by almost 27%, from £53,000 to £67,200.

Within hours of the announcement, Michelle O'Neill was at the microphone, describing the latest proposals as "grotesque". She claimed that the issue of wages was not on Sinn Féin's agenda. Sinn Féin likes to portray itself as the party that stands up for the working class, often citing British austerity, but if that rise is so grotesque to Sinn Féin now, where was it when the legislation to establish the independent remuneration board came before the House?

The Bill to set the wheels in motion for the rise was sponsored on behalf of the Assembly Commission by none other than Sinn Féin's Sinéad Ennis. At Final Stage, Sinn Féin told the House that establishing the board was not merely the right thing to do but the:

"necessary thing to do". — [Official Report (Hansard), 16 June 2025, p9, col 2].

Sinn Féin supported the Bill yet now cries foul.

Only Mr Carroll and I opposed the setting up of the board. We even warned that this was always going to happen. I warned that the legislation was a vehicle by which MLAs would receive a substantial pay increase without openly having to vote for it. That warning was dismissed by MLAs. The board then awarded MLAs a salary increase of over £14,000. My amendment at the Bill's Consideration Stage that proposed a proper 12-week consultation before the Assembly Commission introduced further legislation on MLA salaries and pensions was voted down by MLAs.

To Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists, the Alliance Party and the official Opposition, the SDLP, I say this: you cannot build the machinery, turn the key to operate it and then express horror when it produces the very outcome that was predicted all along. The five establishment parties in the House deliberately created the system, decided its powers and voted it into law. Public services face cuts, and patients wait years for treatment, yet, five months into the financial year, the Executive remain without an agreed Budget. MLAs' most basic responsibility is to agree a Budget. There is no Budget, yet there is time to ensure that there is an MLA pay increase.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Jonathan Buckley.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

That is why this place is out of kilter with the working public.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The debacle surrounding the compassionate, or not so compassionate, release of murderer Gary Anderson has left a deep stain on our justice system, which has been compounded by the fact that the individual is now at large and on the run. We can only begin to think how the Kelly family feel as they live day and daily with the fact that that individual is on the loose.

What causes me deep concern — I asked the Minister about this yesterday but did not get a fulsome answer — is the fact that, in Northern Ireland today, we have what appear to be no-go areas for prison officers. The Minister tried to shrug that off by suggesting that I would not want prison officers to be put in harm's way. She is right — I would not want that — but it is an absolute failure and a demonstration of the Alliance Party's weakness on law and order that that individual, Gary Anderson, and others who are out of prison on similar terms have no direct prison officer oversight while they are at large in the community in which they perpetrated their crimes, which in this case was murder. I am aghast that such individuals can walk about without even being handcuffed. It is an absolute shame and a disgrace.

Another point that I have been equally angered by and am puzzled about is the chaperone service: the escort service. Mr Durkan MLA, who is sitting in the Chamber, revealed on BBC radio that he had partaken in such a chaperone programme and went on to claim that former IRA prisoner Raymond McCartney had also acted in such a manner. I am at a loss, because I have never once heard of such a scheme that enables MLAs and former MLAs to chaperone those who appear to be dangerous criminals on our streets. I have heard of political policing, but this is political prisons. I cannot believe that the House is not in uproar about the fact that prisoners such as Gary Anderson are deemed to be releasable into the hands and custody of, for example, their uncle and that other prisoners have been released into the custody and care of serving MLAs —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— and former MLAs.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up. I call Colm Gildernew.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

There must be a statement from the Justice Minister, and there can never be no-go areas for anyone.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Tabharfar an ráiteas seo as Gaeilge. Molaim do na Comhaltaí na cluasáin a chur orthu féin.

[Translation: The following statement will be made in Irish. I encourage Members to don their headsets.]

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Is léir dúinn gur beag muinín atá ag na daoine as an Aire Pobal i dtaca le cuid mhór ceisteanna. Tá sin ríshoiléir ó bheith ag amharc ar a bhfuil déanta aige don Ghaeilge.

Thug Conradh na Gaeilge an tríú hathbhreithniú breithiúnach i gcoinne an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin le linn an tsamhraidh. Is é an tuairim a thug an Ard-Chúirt — don tríú huair — go bhfuil an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin ag sárú an dualgais de réir dlí atá orthu glacadh le straitéis Ghaeilge. Tá dualgas de réir dlí ar an Aire Pobal straitéis Ghaeilge a thabhairt isteach go ndéana an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin a breathnú, agus d’fheall air sin a dhéanamh. Tá cúpla ceist ar leith atá ina néal os cionn an Aire chéanna, amhail an mhoilleadóireacht aige i dtaca le straitéis Ghaeilge, an chaingean dlí aige i gcoinne comharthaíocht dhátheangach in Ardstásiún Bhéal Feirste agus an easpa gnímh aige faoin straitéis frithbhochtaineachta.

Tá plean difriúil ag an Aire Pobal don Ghaeilge: plean le cosc a chur ar fhorbairt na Gaeilge agus ar fhás leanúnach na Gaeilge ar fud an oileáin seo. Tá sé de rún ag an Aire an bonn a bhaint ón Ghaeilge agus ionsaí a dhéanamh uirthi gach ré sholais. Is léir sin don tsaol. Ach ní éireoidh leis an Aire. Tá an Ghaeilge faoi bhláth, agus tiocfaidh rath agus bláth uirthi go fóill mar gheall ar na daoine sin a bhfuil grá agus meas acu don teanga agus atá ag obair go dúthrachtach ar a son. Níor chóir eagla bheith ar dhuine ar bith roimh an Ghaeilge.

Mar sin de, iarraim ar an Aire Pobal ligean as bheith ag cur in aghaidh na Gaeilge. Iarraim air straitéis Ghaeilge a thabhairt faoi bhráid an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin gan a thuilleadh moille.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

This Saturday, as part of the Save Lough Neagh campaign, the March for Clean Water will be at Stormont. We will see fishermen, fisherwomen, farmers, swimmers, trade unionists and people from every community who have a stake in the future of the lough and the future of our planet. I wish them well, and I hope that people can join them at the protest. Those campaigners understand what the Executive do not: clean water should not be green or even orange. Clean water is a fundamental right. We need to stop the delay and the distractions, take on the polluters and save Lough Neagh.

The water in this bottle is from Lough Neagh. It came out of the largest freshwater lake on these islands, and it was given to me by campaigners. It is green, it stinks and it is absolutely toxic. Lough Neagh is the source of at least 40% of our drinking water. People are expected to drink this water, to bathe their children in it and to swim in it. However, I ask the MLAs here: would any serious, right-thinking person drink it?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Carroll, you know that you should not use props. You have done it now, so you can put it away.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

OK. I will put it there.

The water is choking the life out of the lough. It is real life; it is not a gimmick or just a prop. It is the reality of life for people in and around the lough. Swans have been trapped in the algae; young eels are suffocating; and biodiversity has been wiped out, summer after summer, since 2023.

It is not some accident; it is a political problem. The problem was created by the Going for Growth strategy endorsed by the Executive parties and the official Opposition, which handed the agri-food giants a fortune and a licence to pollute. It was created by factory farm after factory farm that was waved through on the lough shore. It was created by years of underinvestment in sewage infrastructure and by a total failure to crack down on polluters.

What has the party to my right — the DUP — been busy with lately? Not the lough, not dealing with pollution but trying to stoke up division around Drumcree and many other issues. I ask the DUP and the other Executive parties this: why are you not fixing the crisis you created in our waterways, instead of stirring up division and hatred? I encourage people to join the protest outside this Building on Saturday.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Yesterday morning, I spoke here about the escalating cost of fuel, and I have been inundated ever since by people giving me real-life examples of how it is hurting them. Hard-pressed working families are struggling in every corner of Northern Ireland to fuel their cars and heat their homes as the nip of autumn appears in the air. It is devastating, and it will only get worse. We need to see some urgent action.

Farmers from across South Down have told me about how it is hitting them because, once again, our agri-food sector has been hit. We have an Agriculture Minister who has turned his back on the sector, and they feel that they have nowhere to turn for help with the fuel prices. In my area, the fishing industry relies heavily on fuel. They have pleaded with the Minister for a variety of things, and, again, he has turned his back on them. He has shut them out of waters where they can no longer fish, and now they have been hit with high fuel prices that are crippling them. We have manufacturing industries that run machinery, and, across the countryside, different equipment uses fuel.

In places like South Down and rural Northern Ireland, everything is further away. You have to travel further for healthcare, education and access to any service. People are struggling, and those who are already on the edge are struggling to access services and feeling the pressure.

We now need to see action, and everybody in the House should stand together on that. We are seeing the highest fuel prices that we have had in a long time. It will be a cold, long winter, and we need to see action.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you. That brings to a conclusion Members' statements.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Mr Carroll's contribution, you ruled that it was not proper for him to have props in the Chamber, and that is right according to the Members' code of conduct. However, is it in order for the Member, after making his point — we are all concerned about Lough Neagh, particularly those of us who live on its shores — to continue to have said prop on his table? Surely that falls well below the conduct that we expect in the Assembly and what is in the code of conduct about what Members can and cannot bring into the Chamber?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your guidance on that. My point was that it is real water and not a prop or gimmick. I do not know whether Mr Buckley would prefer the water to spill on the carpet and get close to him. Does he not know that it is toxic and dangerous? I wanted to make sure that it did not fall and injure anybody. He needs to address the issue of Lough Neagh and not just ignore it.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. Mr Carroll used the bottle for effect: he is not supposed to do that. I note that other Members have previously used props. It is inappropriate, and that is why I asked Mr Carroll to withdraw the bottle. He chose to set it on the table. He probably should not have done that, but we will not make a big thing of it. He has been told that it is inappropriate, as have others on previous occasions.

Ministerial Statement

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Today, I wish to set out the range of actions that my Department is taking to support veterans and their families.

I am committed to ensuring that veterans and the wider armed forces community receive the right support, delivered in the right way, that will best meet their needs. As Minister for Communities, I have consistently affirmed my commitment to veterans and have translated that commitment into a suite of actions that will make a tangible difference to the lives of those who currently serve in our armed forces, those who have left active service and their families.

Last November, the Assembly took an important and welcome step when it debated and passed a motion reaffirming that service leavers, veterans and their families should face no disadvantage in accessing public services. That remains my objective for the Department for Communities, the remit of which touches on almost every aspect of people’s everyday lives and delivers a wide range of policies, programmes and services, including all-important support to our citizens at key times when they most need it. Our veterans have given so much through their service, and I am committed to ensuring that that sacrifice does not disadvantage them in accessing their entitlements.

The armed forces compensation scheme provides important support to serving and former armed forces personnel whose injury, illness or death is attributable to service. Specific social security provisions ensure that compensation payments, including lump sum awards and guaranteed income payments, do not unduly impact on entitlement to benefits. My officials continue to work across government to identify opportunities to strengthen support for veterans, remove disadvantage for them and recognise their service and sacrifice. As part of that commitment, my Department introduced legislation to ensure that payments made under the Ministry of Defence's LGBT financial recognition scheme are disregarded indefinitely when assessing entitlement to specified means-tested benefits. The legislation also exempts those payments from the Department's compensation recovery arrangements, ensuring that recipients receive the full value of their financial recognition payment. That helps to ensure that receiving redress does not leave veterans or others at a disadvantage in the social security system.

I am resolute in my commitment to ensuring that any new scheme developed in my Department is viewed through the lens of the needs of veterans and their families. That is why I am also pleased to highlight that eligible veterans can benefit from the recently announced home heating oil support scheme, alongside the range of other support available to households across Northern Ireland.

On 26 May, in demonstrating my Department’s clear commitment to the armed forces community, I launched a dedicated veterans’ support line for Northern Ireland. That service is the first of its kind across the UK and represents an important step forward in ensuring that information and services are fully accessible to veterans and their families. The support line provides a telephone and text entry point to make the service as openly accessible as possible. On contacting the support line, veterans will receive a free and confidential needs assessment modelled on existing provision through the Make the Call service. The assessment will work with veterans to identify potential eligibility for benefits, support and services. The model has been developed in close liaison with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to ensure a seamless handover should a housing query be received through the support line.

My officials engaged extensively with veterans’ representative organisations in preparation for go-live to ensure that the model was developed in a way that addressed the barriers facing veterans in accessing services. Great attention to detail was paid to ensure that the service was established on the basis of principles of confidentiality and sensitivity and informed by the awareness of challenges most impacting on veterans and their families. Staff underwent a significant programme of veteran-specific training and worked with representative organisations in developing a collaborative approach and to facilitate soft handovers where necessary. Staff on the support line also received a high level of security clearance. It has been vital to get the service right so that veterans can benefit from a high-quality, confidential and trauma-informed model of support in which they can have full confidence.

To date, 95 contacts have been received by the support line. That modest uptake is fully in line with expectations of a service of this nature, and it will take time to continue to raise awareness and build confidence in the approach. To promote the veterans’ support line, officials from my Department have participated in a series of roadshows organised by the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner’s Office (NIVCO). Those events provided a valuable opportunity to raise awareness of the service and engage directly with veterans, serving personnel and their families. In addition, departmental officials attended Armed Forces Day events in Coleraine on 20 June, further supporting efforts to highlight the assistance available through the veterans support line and strengthen engagement with the armed forces community.

The impacts of the support line are already clear. Each contact received from a veteran represents much more than a statistic. Each call has been a reaffirmation of our commitment to veterans: to listen to them and to seek to understand the challenges that they face and provide advice and support in response. Each call answered is confirmation that we will meet them at their point of need and respond. Each call answered is a difference made to an individual and/or a family.

Looking ahead, I confirm that my officials will continue to develop the programme of outreach to support and promote the veterans support line, increase awareness of the assistance available and extend our engagement with the wider armed forces community across Northern Ireland. As Minister, I will also continue to engage directly with veterans and their families in demonstrating my commitment to meeting their needs in the right way and at the right time. Over the coming months, I will build on my engagement with the armed forces community through a range of events in partnership with the office of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and in identifying further opportunities where we can develop our policies and practice. It is in that spirit of partnership that I reaffirm my commitment to engaging, listening and acting on the views expressed through the lived experience of veterans, their representative organisations and their families.

Whilst the support line is a significant outworking of the Department's programme of activity to remove disadvantage for veterans, wider activities are planned to ensure that other areas in the Department are equipped to meet the needs of the armed forces community. Since May 2026, 48 members of staff in the Department have received veteran-specific training, with a plan for a wider roll-out to jobs and benefits office staff on a phased basis over the coming months. Feedback from that training has been positive, with staff reporting increased awareness of veterans' issues and greater confidence in dealing with veterans. The training is central to ensuring that my Department is well equipped and informed to address issues and challenges facing the veteran community, thereby sending a strong message of delivery.

Additionally, I have brought forward a range of other actions to enhance wider engagement and coordination with veterans and armed forces representative organisations to ensure that the services that we provide can meet their needs. Notably, I have appointed a senior official at deputy secretary level as the strategic lead for veterans' issues in the Department. The strategic lead will act as a single point of contact for veterans' support organisations on policy issues and will lead on strategic engagement with the veterans community. A strategic liaison group has been established and has met twice since its inception in May 2026. The group comprises officials from across my Department and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive alongside the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and representatives from the Office for Veterans' Affairs and veterans' services for Northern Ireland. The group will be a key mechanism in monitoring uptake of the veterans support line, identifying any emerging policy issues and gaps in provision and developing a coherent approach to strategic engagement with the veteran community. That will instil a strategic, ongoing focus on veterans’ support in the Department; ensure that policies and services are informed by the lived experiences of veterans and their families; and promote a joined-up approach to service provision.

Collaboration with the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and the Office for Veterans' Affairs is also supported through the development of a trusted partnership relationship whereby representatives can liaise directly with my senior officials on cases that are already in the system across a range of issues including housing, access to benefits and employability. Over the coming months, I will seek to expand and develop that approach.

From a housing perspective, my Department and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are cognisant of the armed forces covenant, ensuring that the armed forces community is treated fairly and receives the support that it needs in relation to social housing allocation, homelessness and disabled facilities grants.

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive's approach aims to ensure that members of the armed forces community are not discouraged from seeking housing assistance and are able to access services without unnecessary barriers. It supports the principle that members of the armed forces community should face no disadvantage in accessing housing or homeless services.

Access to social housing in Northern Ireland is provided through the housing selection scheme, which assesses applicants on the basis of housing need within the statutory framework. Members of the armed forces community are assessed in accordance with the same legislative and policy framework as all other applicants. Any household that presents as homeless will be assessed as per the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. The Housing Executive works to assist all applicants through its housing solutions and support service to find the best possible solution for their housing needs. All circumstances or needs, including those related to their service history, will be taken into consideration during the assessment.

We know that leaving the armed forces can create a real risk of homelessness, and the Housing Executive reflects that in its housing and homelessness assessment process. Individuals can approach the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in person, by telephone or by email to apply for housing and homelessness assistance. For those who may not meet all four statutory tests to be classed as a full duty applicant homeless, the housing selection scheme includes 50 points under the "Other Homeless" category relating to leaving armed forces service accommodation.

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is a key partner in the veterans support line and has established a dedicated hunt group for any queries emanating from the service. Designated NIHE staff have also received additional veterans-awareness training to ensure that individuals receive a fair service and are not disadvantaged by a lack of understanding of their context and experience. As part of the application process, consideration will also be given to making a referral to the veterans support line, which provides additional help beyond housing, and for other relevant floating support referrals that may be of benefit to the applicant. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive continues to engage with the Department for Communities, the Veterans Commissioner/NIVCO and other key agencies in the delivery of the veterans support line and is a core member of the Department's strategic liaison group on veterans.

Earlier this year, I took the decision to disregard war pensions from the calculation of income for the affordable warmth scheme. That was primarily because veterans were being treated differently from other disabled people whose disability-related benefits were already excluded from the scheme income threshold. That ensures that the affordable warmth scheme is aligned with other benefits and payments, including discretionary support grants, universal credit, housing benefit and home improvement grants.

Taken together, those actions demonstrate my Department's commitment to upholding the principles of the armed forces covenant and ensuring that members of the armed forces community in Northern Ireland face no disadvantage when accessing the information and support that they need. The Department for Communities has led and continues to lead the way in delivering positive change for veterans. My Department remains steadfast in its commitment to continue to deliver with empathy and understanding; to work to level the playing field for veterans; and to replace mistrust with confidence in services that are finally delivering the right support in the right way to meet veterans' needs. I am committed to broadening and deepening that work so that more veterans and their families can benefit from the public services that they deserve.

For those who have given so much, I commit to ensuring that their contribution is met, in some part, by public services that meet them at their point of need and deliver with the respect, sensitivity and understanding that they are due. I commend the statement to the House.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thanks to the Minister for the statement. The Minister says that veterans should not be disadvantaged by receiving compensation or recognition payments, and I agree; nobody should be. Will he explain why a worker on low income who receives an overdue backdated pay rise or a recognition payment is not only not protected — we have heard time and again that that cannot be done — but penalised? We have seen that happen with classroom assistants, health workers and others, yet another group receives specific protections. Is that a fair and consistent approach to take?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My desire is to make sure that everybody is treated in the same way. My actions have ensured that, for example, people who are disabled and are members of the armed forces community are not treated any differently from anybody else. The Member mentioned another situation. In that scenario, members of the armed forces community will be treated in the same way as the others whom he mentioned. I know that there is some disagreement on what that treatment should look like, but I am trying not to give preference to anybody. On each specific issue, everybody, no matter their background, be they a civilian or a member of the armed forces community, will be treated the same.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, you have said that any new scheme that is developed by your Department will be viewed through the lens of veterans' needs. Would it not be better to view your policies through the lens of objective need, whereby those who are most in need are prioritised, regardless of background or occupation?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am trying to make sure that no one is disadvantaged specifically because of their service. I also have a legal obligation, however, to give due regard to the issues, because the armed forces covenant is in place in Northern Ireland. I therefore have specific responsibilities in that regard. We deliver our policies on the basis of need, but what I am ensuring is that no one is disadvantaged because of their service and that people are treated fairly and equitably. That is something that everybody should be in favour of.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his continued commitment, and that of his Department, to our veterans in Northern Ireland. On the back of his very welcome statement, I ask why the Armed Forces Bill has not gone to the Executive in order to allow a legislative consent motion (LCM) to be brought to the House.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I very much welcome the work that the Government are doing on the Armed Forces Bill, which will extend the duties and responsibilities of public authorities, including the devolved Administrations, under the armed forces covenant. In the first instance, it will be for the Executive to support a legislative consent motion's coming to the House. The LCM should be tabled by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. I have spoken to the deputy First Minister, and she has no objection whatsoever to an LCM's being tabled. I hope that the First Minister will also recognise the importance of the issue.

The First Minister has been very clear that she is a "First Minister for all". She has frequently talked about the importance of equality and parity, and I hope that that will extend to everybody in Northern Ireland, including members of our armed forces community. If she truly is a "First Minister for all" and wants to make sure that people are not disadvantaged because of their service in the armed forces, I hope that she will do the right thing and allow an LCM to go through the Executive and then come to the House, as that would ensure that people are treated fairly and without disadvantage.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I ask him to give us a wee bit more detail about the training that he talked about. What makes it veteran-specific, and what is included? It would also be really useful to understand how much it has cost per head for the 48 recipients of the training so far and how jobs and benefits office staff will be recruited.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I hope that the Member will be pleased to hear that funding for the training has come from the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust. It is really welcome that that funding has been provided at no cost to the Department. Had there been a cost, I would have been happy to pay it in order to ensure that people got the support that they needed. That training has not come at any cost to the Department, however, and I look forward to its being rolled out further so that more people can understand what needs to be done.

I recognise how important it is for veterans and their families to feel safe and confident when accessing the support line. Staff have received specialist training on the issues and challenges that veterans face. Furthermore, staff have the appropriate level of security clearance so that we can protect confidentiality and build trust and confidence for those who use the service.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I declare an interest as an armed forces veteran of 32 years. I also welcome the Veterans Commissioner to the Gallery and thank him very much indeed for the hard work that he has done.

Some Members

Hear. Hear.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, the most important questions for members of the armed forces community are around confidentiality and security. Will the Minister further advise whether people who are involved in dealing with members of the armed forces and the armed forces family have been security vetted in an appropriate way by the appropriate authorities so that they can have and can retain that confidence?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely. I can confirm that to the Member. I understand how sensitive the issue is. I also understand that, in these early stages, we still detect some reluctance to pick up the phone, to make the call, because veterans are unsure what will happen if they mention their circumstances to somebody at the other end. That was one of the primary reasons that we put the phone line in place and have ensured that staff have been trained. The Member will understand that I cannot go into the detail of it, but I assure him that everyone has received an appropriate level of security clearance as well.

One of the reasons that I wanted to give the statement to the House today was so that I could explain that and give answers to questions such as the one that the Member asked. I want to ensure that there is confidence in what we are doing. I want people to feel that they can come forward. We care and we want to make sure that everybody is treated equally. That is what I am doing through this, and I hope that other Members in the House will send that message back: it is something that can be trusted and something that we can have confidence in, so, please, call the line and use the other resources that are available, because that will help to make a difference to our armed forces community across Northern Ireland.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

[Translation: I thank the Minister.]

The Minister said that 48 members of staff have received veteran-specific training. Will the Minister outline how many members of DFC staff have received bespoke disability and inclusion training in this mandate?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That is a considerable number of people. I do not have those specific figures with me, but I am happy to provide that information to the Member. Again, this is about equality. It is about people being treated fairly and ensuring that we have the staff in place who understand the needs of specific groups. That is why I have introduced the hotline. That is why we are doing training and extending that training, and I will follow up and provide the Member with that information.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I, too, welcome the Veterans Commissioner to the Gallery today and thank him for the work that he and his office are doing with the veterans community. It is much appreciated.

Minister, I welcome your statement, particularly in reference to the motion that was passed in the House on the need to support veterans. Unfortunately, other Ministers in the Executive have been lacking in that area. For example, the Infrastructure Minister wrote to the Executive Office Committee to say that there was no agreed position on the covenant.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Your question, please.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am incredulous at the Infrastructure Minister's providing no support to veterans, especially when it comes to public transport. Do you agree that Ministers need to put their prejudice aside, recognise the importance of the motion that was agreed in the House and support people living in our communities across Northern Ireland?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely. Just as a reminder, the Armed Forces Act 2021 introduced a legal duty on certain public bodies to make sure that we have "due regard" to the principles of the armed forces covenant. We cannot pick and choose which laws we wish to follow. When there is a duty on us to have due regard, we have to follow that. We have to make sure that we are doing what is required of us in legislation. The Armed Forces Bill will ensure that additional duties are placed on a number of other areas. Transport will be one of them, so the Department for Infrastructure needs to get ready to make sure that it has all its bases covered and knows what will be required of it.

I have gone further than what is currently required under legislation because it is the right thing to do and I want to make sure that I completely fulfil my responsibilities under the armed forces covenant. That will soon extend further. It will extend to here, so it is right and proper that Ministers get prepared for that, but they should not have had to be forced into it. They should be adhering to those principles already.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I declare an interest in the matter. Minister, to outline why this has come about, will you confirm the barriers that were identified by veterans when they tried to access services that were delivered by or funded through the Department for Communities?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

One reason that there is reluctance among members of the armed forces community to use the Make the Call service or other advice or support services is because they are worried about revealing their employment history and being open about their service. People should never be fearful or ashamed of doing that in any way, but they are made to feel that way by some people in Northern Ireland.

The service has been set up to make sure that there is a space for people to call, knowing that those on the other end of the phone have the appropriate training and security clearance for them to be able to talk about their individual circumstances with confidence. Those were some of the messages that we got from veterans, representative organisations and the Veterans Commissioner's Office. That is why we have put it in place and clearly why there has been an uptake that has gone up in the past few weeks. I have no doubt that it will continue to go up as that confidence is built.

Paul Boggs (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, you say that you are demonstrating your commitment to those from what you refer to as the "armed forces community": why are you not as committed to people who live in poverty, those with an LGBT community background and those from all backgrounds who continue to be failed by the fact that you have not delivered an anti-poverty strategy or an LGBTQIA+ strategy?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First, as I said, I have a legal duty to make sure that I have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant, so I am following what the law requires me to do. Making sure that people are treated equally is also the morally right thing to do.

On the other issues that the Member has raised, he will know, as he is now on the Communities Committee, that extensive work is being done on the anti-poverty strategy in particular to make sure that we do not just have a document that sits on a shelf but one with measures that will make a difference. I have listened to some of the concerns that people have expressed on that, and, unfortunately, more work needed to be done. That work is progressing.

The Member raised the LGBT strategy. One reason that it has stalled is that we do not have agreement in the Chamber on some of the most fundamental principles of what would be in that strategy. There is huge disagreement, as we have seen only in the past few weeks on so-called conversion practices and the difficulties with that. We will struggle in the time that is left in the mandate to get something that commands the support of the House.

I am doing what I can right now on this issue. Rather than making sure that one group is prioritised over another or gets special treatment, I am making sure that everybody is treated fairly. I hope that, as a new Member, he will go to the First Minister and say, "You say that you are the 'First Minister for all' and that you are here to represent everybody equally in Northern Ireland. Therefore, let us debate the legislative consent motion on the Armed Forces Bill on the Floor, so that we can demonstrate that not just with words and rhetoric but with action". I leave that challenge with him.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, I welcome your comments about how veterans feel that they have to evaluate their personal security when making contact with the various benefits processes. I get that, because, only last week, I worked with a veteran who had redacted a lot of the information that he had sent through. I appreciate your commentary on that. I assist genuine people in dealing with your Department's welfare and benefits processes, so I want to know this: what is the impact on somebody's existing benefits entitlement, should they receive a payment from the armed forces compensation scheme?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for that question. I confirm that any payments from the armed forces compensation scheme will be fully disregarded when assessing entitlement to universal credit. That approach also applies to war pensions payments. The first £10 of a war pensions payment or armed forces compensation scheme award that is made due to injury or disablement is disregarded when assessing entitlement to pension credit.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As Minister for fairness, equality and non-discrimination and being good to everybody and treating them in the same way, will you support my colleague Colm Gildernew's Housing (Amendment) Bill on the basis that it discriminates against no one and would give everyone equal access to protection and support when they are at risk of homelessness? That would cover everybody, including those about whom you talked in your statement. That is actually about equality. It is about looking after everyone. If that is what you want to be Minister for, why not put your money where your mouth is?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That has absolutely no relevance to the statement in front of us. Why does she not ask questions about people's equality and how they have been treated? Why does she not ask questions about how we can better support our armed forces?

[Interruption.]

She had the opportunity to ask the questions; it is now my turn to answer

[Interruption.]

She may not like the answer that I am giving, but perhaps she could give me the respect of allowing the question to be answered.

If she was here last evening, she will have heard the concerns that I had about Mr Gildernew's Bill. She will shortly hear from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and others about the issues that we have with it. My offer to Mr Gildernew to work together on it stands. The fact that the Member asked a question that bears no connection to the subject at hand says more about her and her party's approach to the matter. I put the challenge to her that I put to Mr Boggs: if she is so concerned about equality and people being treated fairly, will she support the legislative consent motion for the Bill? She has set herself up as someone who cares about equality and fairness, so is she prepared to do that? Is she prepared to —?

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Is "she" my name?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I think that I am referring to her in the right way. Is "the Member for Mid Ulster" more appropriate? I put a challenge to the Member for Mid Ulster: will she encourage her fellow Member for Mid Ulster to allow that Bill to come before the Chamber so that we can vote on it? All that we have seen from her today is distraction.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his continued commitment to our veterans community and those who have sacrificed and served for the freedoms that we have today. I declare that I am the daughter of a proud member of the Ulster Defence Regiment who served to fight the evils that came to Northern Ireland.

Minister, the Veterans Commissioner, whom I welcome today, has done a fantastic job in raising and highlighting the issues. Will you continue to engage proactively with the commissioner's office and encourage other Ministers to do the same?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely. I pay tribute to the Veterans Commissioner for the work that he has done and how he has invested in the issue. I also thank the staff who support him and the groups and organisations that he has brought together to be such powerful advocates on the issues that matter. I encourage others in the Executive to engage with him to better understand those needs. The Minister of Education has commented about what he is doing on this in his Department. Much can still be done in other Departments, including the Department of Health. We have a new Health Minister, and I hope that good engagement will begin there soon, because many of the issues are faced by people who also have health needs. It is important that we have appropriate liaison there as well and bring forward proposals that ensure that we not just keep the law but properly adhere to fulfilling the principles espoused in the armed forces covenant.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You stated that the staff who received training received a high level of security clearance. Did any staff not clear the barrier of that security clearance? Are there any members of staff in your Department about whom you have a security concern?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I certainly have no concern about any individuals. Nothing like that has been brought to my attention. The Member asked specifically about individuals: I do not have that information with me now, but, if we can, we will furnish him with it.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I too welcome the Veterans Commissioner here today and declare an interest as a serving member of the Army Reserve. I pay tribute to the 40,000-plus service personnel and veterans here and agree with the Minister's statement. I am sure that he will agree with me about the great work that our charities and voluntary organisations do in working with veterans, particularly around mental health. Will you give an undertaking, Minister, about what your Department and the support line service will do to work to hand in glove with them to ensure full maximisation of the services that they provide?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely. I thank all the organisations that have been involved in promoting the line and those that we are able to refer to if there are specific issues that do not come under the Department's remit. We are grateful for the opportunity to work with them. The ability to help and deliver for our veterans does not lie with one Department alone or even with government alone; there are other organisations that can help.

I am committed to ensuring that we have good working relationships so that we can provide the support and assistance needed. There is an incredible support network here, including organisations and charities that do brilliant work. I have had the opportunity to meet many of them. They are trusted, which is why so many members of our armed forces community use the services that they provide. I want to make sure that government can be trusted as well. That is why I have put in place that specific service. I encourage the Member to promote it to others. As he will be aware, we have many veterans and members of the armed forces community in our constituency. I hope that they, too, will avail themselves of that service.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Minister, you can be sure that you have one friend in Mid Ulster. I appreciate that you do not have many others, but you have one friend here.

You talked about collaboration in your statement. What level of collaboration was there and with whom, and what plans are there for future collaboration?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

There has been extensive collaboration not just with members of the armed forces community but with many of their representative organisations and, obviously, the UK Government. I was pleased to host an MOD Minister in Northern Ireland earlier this year, as well as representatives from other Departments. There has been a high level of collaboration. I hope that that will continue, because, as I said in my answer to Mr Stewart, the issues cannot be dealt with in isolation. I want to make sure that there is a community of support, including charities, organisations, representative groups and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is important that the Armed Forces Bill pass so that those duties can be extended. It is not just the current responsibilities that need to be dealt with; we also have new areas coming in, such as social care, childcare, employment, personal taxation, benefits, criminal justice, immigration, citizenship, pensions, compensation and transport. I hope that people wake up to the fact that that support is needed and will support the Bill.

I am not sure about anybody else in Mid Ulster, but I am glad that the Member has proudly declared that he is my friend today. I hope that he will follow up on that later as well.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Thank you, Minister. I also thank our veterans. Will the Minister confirm what resources he has allocated and what he is considering allocating in the future to the outreach programme? Is the NI Veterans Commissioner contributing to the cost? I am aware of the work that the Minister has done with Connect Through Service (CTS), and I thank him for that.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I have already stated that the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust is helping to fund the ongoing training. I am glad that that has happened and hope that it will continue. I have been able to manage it within my Department's current staffing resource by reallocating some members of staff to that work. However, those who have been trained will still have the responsibility and the ability to work in other areas of the Department as well. Cost should not prohibit us from making sure that people are treated fairly, but that has been manageable. I am glad that we are able to do that, because it is the right thing to do.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

The Sinn Féin First Minister stated earlier this year that the armed forces covenant was a matter for the UK Government. She said:

"It is their policy, and it is for them to protect their serving forces." — [Official Report (Hansard), 16 February 2026, p27, col 2].

I point out the simple irony that British forces not only protect the UK but provide free defence security for our neighbour the Republic of Ireland. I am not sure whether the Sinn Féin Members opposite support or oppose that. Minister, was the First Minister correct in her statement?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

No, she was not. She was wrong. I hope that the First Minister will correct the record on that one. It is clear that the Armed Forces Act introduced a legal duty to have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant.

Let me be clear: the armed forces covenant applies in Northern Ireland. I am doing the work that I am doing because I want to make sure that it applies equally. It applies in law, and I want to ensure that the Armed Forces Bill will apply here so that the benefits that service personnel in the rest of the UK will get will also apply here. The responsibility is not simply for the UK Government; we have responsibilities here. As Ministers within the United Kingdom, there is a responsibility on me, on Michelle O'Neill and on every other Minister. We cannot pick and choose which responsibilities we take on.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

It comes as no surprise that the party that still eulogises terrorists cannot support our veterans. Does the Minister agree that our veterans suffer issues of homelessness and that there are particular issues in Northern Ireland in that they do not feel safe living in certain areas? How does the Minister propose to ensure, or how is he ensuring, that those issues do not present a disadvantage when it comes to housing assessments?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That is exactly why I am doing the work that I set out in my statement and why my Department is working with the Housing Executive to make sure that those particular issues that people face, which still present a barrier, can be addressed. That work had not been progressed before I came into post, but I made it a priority. As a result, we will see the positive changes that are needed. That does not mean that we will get it right all the time, but the point of the work that I am doing is to raise awareness in people's minds and make people aware of the issues that veterans face. The training that will take place in the Housing Executive will contribute to solving the problem that the Member referred to.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister agree that, given that we recruit men and women to put their lives on the line to protect our nation and that those men and women put planning their future welfare on hold until after finishing their service, at which time they may have sustained life-changing injuries, the community has a moral responsibility to recognise and accommodate their unique and special post-service circumstances?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I do. I thank the Member for setting that out in the way that he did. We need to make sure that people are not disadvantaged because of their service and the circumstances that they face or because of the time that their service may have taken them out of the country and what that might have done to their housing situation, or because of whatever else. It is important that we ensure that there is no disadvantage. That is what we are trying to do through the responsibilities that are placed on us by the armed forces covenant. I welcome the statement that the Member made.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I welcome the Minister's statement and his continued support for our veterans community. How many of the 95 contacts that have been made to date have resulted in a veteran receiving a benefit, obtaining accommodation or being referred to mental health services? Will the Minister commit to publishing those figures on an ongoing basis in order to demonstrate the need for the service for veterans who were not successful through existing channels or simply did not feel safe to reach out and ask for help until the service was put in place?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We will be doing work to analyse that. In the meantime, I can tell the Member that, so far, many of the calls that we have received have related to benefit entitlement. I hope to have fuller information on that and will consider how that could be published. I want to be careful because of sensitivities and confidentiality. We are trying to build up people's confidence to call and will need to be careful about anything that could potentially identify someone. I still believe that it should be possible to publish that information, but I am giving that caveat because I want to make sure that we do not do anything that affects people's confidence in calling the system. I will be happy to keep the Member updated on that.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I join others in welcoming the Veterans Commissioner to the Public Gallery, and I thank the Minister for the work that he has been doing and that he continues to do for our veterans, who are so often left behind. Will the Minister provide further clarity on the role of the strategic lead?

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I will be happy to do so. I appointed a senior official in my Department as strategic lead. That is evidence of my ongoing commitment to leading on delivery for veterans across my ministerial portfolio and to ensuring that there is a continued strategic focus on removing disadvantage, where it exists. The strategic lead is the lead point of contact in the Department for strategic policy issues relating to veterans, ensuring that any issues that impact on veterans and their families are routed effectively. The role also includes responsibility for leading the Department's strategic engagement with veterans and representative organisations. The strategic lead chairs the newly established strategic liaison group, which comprises representatives from DFC, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and veterans' representative organisations, including the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner's office, the Office for Veterans' Affairs and Veteran Services Northern Ireland.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That ends questions on the statement.

Committee Business

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 8 January 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Regional Balance Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

As the House is aware, the call for evidence for the Committee Stage of the Regional Balance Bill commenced before the summer recess and is about to conclude. The Committee has received around 25 responses, and more will likely follow. To allow the Committee time to conclude its scrutiny of other Bills and to take some time over the recently received responses to the Regional Balance Bill, the Committee agreed to seek an extension of the Bill's Committee Stage until 8 January 2027. The Committee will endeavour to conclude its deliberations well in advance of that date. In any event, the Committee believes that the conclusion of its deliberations by the date in the motion will allow the subsequent stages of the Bill to be concluded in good time before the Assembly dissolves. On behalf of the Committee, I therefore commend the extension motion to the House.

That concludes my remarks as Deputy Chairperson. I will speak briefly as a DUP MLA. I congratulate my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin on bringing forward her Member's Bill. Regional balance is something about which many of us in rural constituencies feel very strongly. I am always keen to make sure that it is not just a case of the north-west versus Belfast. We also have the south-east and Fermanagh. Although the Bill sits with the Economy Committee, it is widely recognised that regional balance is about more than just the economy. It is about infrastructure, health and access to all services. I look forward to getting into the detail of the Bill in Committee.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I simply want to put on record that my party supports the motion. As a Member for Strangford, I look forward to the Bill's implications for regional balance, particularly on the Ards peninsula.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 8 January 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Regional Balance Bill.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 29 January 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

As the House is aware, the call for evidence for the Committee Stage of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill commenced before the summer recess and will conclude just before Halloween. This is a relatively simple Bill, with lots of regulation-making powers. It does complicated things in order to promote renewable electricity generation in Northern Ireland. To allow the Committee time to conclude its scrutiny of other Bills and to allow a little longer for respondents to the call for evidence on the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill to reply, the Committee agreed to seek an extension of the Bill's Committee Stage until 29 January 2027. The Committee will endeavour to conclude its deliberations well in advance of the date in the motion, which should allow sufficient time for the passage of this Executive Bill to conclude prior to dissolution. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the extension of the Committee Stage to the House.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 29 January 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill.

Private Members' Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The debate on the Second Stage of the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill was not concluded upon the Assembly adjourning on Monday 14 September. I return to the speaking list. I call Mr Paul Frew to continue his contribution. Paul.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to speak for long, as I have already gone through the Bill at great length. Many's a time we see tattered flags on lamp posts, which we all want to see taken down, but having gone through the Bill and spoken on it, I feel that the Bill is in tatters. It is a reckless Bill. You do not need —.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Many of your colleagues have spoken and tried to decimate the Bill, but not one of them has come up with a workable alternative. Your party has held the role of First Minister or deputy First Minister since the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report came out. You have had years to work on a solution and you have not yet articulated why my Bill would not work or what your alternative is. I would appreciate it if you spoke to that. Thank you.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. I spoke at length — over an hour — on decimating the Bill and telling the sponsor how it would not work. The Bill sponsor did not encourage interventions at that time, and did not make interventions. There were times when I was talking about the very serious issue of members of the security forces losing limbs or losing their lives when, in the past, they had to remove symbols and flags that were booby-trapped. That was a very, very serious aspect. The Bill sponsor was on her phone when I was speaking on that.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will, yes.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I found your contribution to be entirely inflammatory. It was wrong. There is no way that I would like to see anybody be harmed in this process. That is why I have said that an outside contractor, who is trained in health and safety and all those aspects, should be involved, and that the police could come in and provide support. You were talking about something that happened many, many years ago. It was absolutely wrong and abhorrent of you to try to bring that into this debate. We have moved on many years. Who would be planting those devices? Who would be doing that? You have not articulated that. Who are the masked men who would be putting those devices up?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. Again, I welcome it; I missed it when we spoke previously on this motion. I went to great lengths to say what I said, because the Bill puts a burden on the Department and states:

"The Department must remove a flag or emblem that is attached to public street furniture",

so individuals would be put at risk. A departmental official, engineer or contractor may well be trained in health and safety, but a contractor is not trained in defence, security or the threat of terrorism. Does the Bill sponsor not realise that we still live under a threat of terrorists? It may well be diminished, and those terrorist organisations may well be diminished, but they still have the potential to murder our personnel, be they a government official from the Department, a contractor working for a Department or a member of the police and security forces. My father, who drove a lorry, was deemed to be a target because he happened to draw stones in and out of a military camp or building site that happened to be a police station. That threat is real. I bring it up because you place a burden on the Department for Infrastructure. It:

"must remove a flag or emblem that is attached to public street furniture."

I have no doubt, and it is not far-fetched to say, that a terrorist outfit would use that as a new front to attack and put in jeopardy the lives of members of the security forces, and, for that matter, the life of even a government official. They did that in the past. They killed census workers who were going from door to door, so never underestimate the potential terrorist threat in this country.

The Bill sponsor's middle-class thoughts on this really betray her stance because she is not deep down into the ground. She is not working with communities; if she were, she would see that the Bill is unachievable. Its objectives and aims are unachievable because it does not include the community in the decisions and preparations to try to remove flags. There are many on these Benches — on both sides of the House, I am sure — who work with communities, even, at times, with people who we do not want to work with on a daily basis, and we try as best we can to remove the flags in the areas where we can.

We also know —

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will in a wee minute, once I advance my argument.

We also know that when that goes wrong at community level, if a flag comes down, 100 may well go up in its place, so there is a real potential that that may spin out of control because of the Bill.

I will give way to the Member.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

First of all, I find it really offensive for the Member to say that I do not work in working-class communities. I spent 19 years of my life doing that. I have consulted widely on the Bill in my community, including in places such as Erinvale, where there are loads of flags and residents say that they were not put up by people from there.

I want to get to the point, however. You, and your colleagues Mr Kingston and Mr Brooks, said that you negotiate the removal of flags, which would indicate that you know who put them up. Under the Roads Order —

A Member

[Inaudible.]

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

No, let me finish. Under section 87 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, if the Department knows who affixes flags to a lighting column, it can issue a fine. You all said that there is existing legislation. That is existing legislation, so if you know who put the flags up, you should be giving that information to the Department for Infrastructure so that it can issue fines. However, you are not doing that, and that is why my Bill needs to come into force. Existing legislation does not address the issue, and that is why I want to place a duty on the Department to take the flags down, because we do not know who puts them up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will in a wee minute.

The Bill sponsor puts my argument for me, in that this legislation will be just as worthless as aspects of other pieces of legislation. When we go to the community and ask whether it would be possible for flags to be removed, even for a period of time, or even replaced because they are tattered, we do not necessarily know who put them up. In some instances, we do know, but, in those instances, it is usually the police who come to us to ask us to influence the people who put them up. That shows that current law in this area is not fit for purpose, and this legislation will go just the same way.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Paul, will you turn around and face the Chair, please?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I should always be addressing you. I know that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am not precious. It is just that we had an issue with microphones yesterday. There is no issue with you, but you seem to be talking to the Bill sponsor rather than to the House. Thank you, Paul.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Forgive me, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am just passionate about this subject, and I lapse at times.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will give way.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Frew. The Bill sponsor cites examples of current legislation that is not being followed. Does that not just show the folly of this Bill in that we are trying to duplicate a process that is not being followed by certain Ministers? She chides the Member for not giving examples of an alternative that is going to work. I suggest that this blue paper certainly will not work, and is not an example of how to deal with this situation.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right because he works in North Antrim, as I do, and he sees the difficulties when it comes to flags and emblems. I note that the Bill sponsor was wanting the intervener to give an intervention, but I will certainly give the intervention.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you. That is exactly the point. My Bill places a duty on the Department to remove the flags because in the current legislation — whether public order or advertisements legislation — there is a reliance on the Department or a council to know who put the flags up. However, we do not know who is putting the flags up, which is why we have taken the actors out of it and put the onus on the Department to take them down. The existing legislation does not work because they do not know who puts them up.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention, but, if it was such a good idea for the Department to take down flags and emblems from street furniture that it owned, it would do it. DFI would already be doing it if it helped the community and did not cause a chasm between the Department for Infrastructure street lighting division, let us say, and the community — the people who live in the houses. That is my point: this will cause a chasm. It will mean that DFI Roads officials, whom we deal with daily and weekly, could well become the target of threats from the community.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will in a wee minute.

That is not acceptable and should not be the case, but some of us, especially those with the threat of terrorism hanging over us, live in the real world.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. I see it from the opposite side because, from my experience, the Department for Infrastructure is seen as the inactive element that does not remove flags. Every summer, I get hundreds of contacts from people asking me personally to remove flags and to go to the Department about it. I encourage people to phone the number and report the flags that they are concerned about. I do not know who puts up those flags because they are put up at 2.00 am or 3.00 am, in the hours of darkness, and there is no negotiation with local people, because it is done by people from outside the area. Can you understand why we need a process that the majority of the community trusts? At the moment, the regulations — the rules — are not being applied, and people have to live with flags, of all hues and colours, that they do not want.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I agree that there is an issue in the community with people having to live, work, travel and commute under flags that they do not like or respect; I get that. What I am saying is that the Bill will not achieve the sponsor's desired outcomes. That is the issue. There is a perverseness with this. I know the sponsor does not mean this, but, many years ago, in my constituency, about 12 people got out of work one lunchtime and went into the town to remove flags, which is something that the Bill wants to achieve. Each one of those workers was arrested for breach of the peace. Those are the sensitivities around this subject, and that is why, when I read the Bill, I was aghast. I could see that there was no way in which these clauses would achieve what the Bill sponsor wants to achieve. I get what she wants to achieve — I would like to see it too — but the Bill is not the vehicle by which to do that. That is my point.

I went through the Bill at great length. I will give way.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Frew. Do you agree that the Bill will put a burden on the law-abiding citizens who put a flag up and take it down, not on the people whom the Alliance Party claims that it wants to target? Those people will not apply via the portal; they will pay no attention to the law. That is why, at the end of the day, the Bill is not workable: it does not target the right people. We hear all this chat about DFI, but what about Northern Ireland Electricity? What about councils? Have we ever bottomed out who is actually responsible? The Bill refers only to the Department, and, if I cast my mind back, I recall that even the Minister was not sure who the Bill would put responsibility on for taking flags down. If there is a noble cause to take forward, this Bill certainly will not do it. It is not going deal with paramilitary flags; it is not going to deal with flags that are offensive to people. Instead of listening to grassroots communities, the thought police of the Alliance Party once again think that they know better.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member makes a valid point, because he lives in the real world. We can have all the text that we want on a blue page, but, if it is unenforceable and unachievable, we will have legislation that is not worth the blue paper that it is printed on. That is the issue. The Member is right: law-abiding communities — the people who respect law and order — who put a flag up could now be criminalised. When it comes down —.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way on that point?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

First, that is not what is in the Bill. The only penalty, the only fine and the only offence in my Bill is where somebody seeks to "obstruct" removal. As I said, under the Roads Order, if somebody puts something up, they can be fined. Existing legislation says that, but my legislation does not, so please do not misinterpret what is in the Bill.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for that intervention and for putting me right in that case. However, here is the truth: those in law-abiding areas will try to adhere to any regulations or laws that are placed upon them, but there are areas of this country where you cannot even collect TV licence money or take planning enforcement action. There are shrines and monuments that do not have planning permission, yet they do not fall foul of the law. As I said at length last week, there are posters and billboards that have been put up by people who should know better, and they will not give two toots about the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. That is the truth.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member. You will be aware that I have included billboards on public property. They are included. As my colleague Andrew McMurray said in the debate, we want to see consistency in approach. Whether it is a Sinn Féin billboard in a certain area or any other billboard, we just want to see consistency.

On the issue of law-abiding citizens, if people are trying to celebrate a royal wedding or commemorate something in their constituency, I do not see any reason why they cannot engage with the Department and say, "By the way, we're going to have this street festival for a week. Here's why we are putting up flags. Here's when we are taking them down". What is unreasonable about that? If you are content and assured and feel very much a sense of belonging in your community, there is no issue there. It is about the people who put up flags that have swear words, intimidating flags or flags that celebrate terrorists. Those are the flags that the Department would have an automatic duty to take down. Again, I do not see how that is unreasonable.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member says that in an intervention, but that is not what her Bill says.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

It is.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Bill refers to "a new housing development". It could be any flag.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member touches on a very important point. I have a concern about the word "vicinity" as well, because that is not defined in the legislation. I struggle with this, and I wonder whether it is just an outright ban on flags, because, when you look at clause 2, you see that there are very few places where you can fly a flag that are not sensitive.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member raises a very valid point in her intervention.

I really welcome the intervention by the Bill sponsor, because I missed that the last time that I was speaking. The Bill sponsor talks about the detail of the Bill. Clause 1(4)(d) states:

"whether the flag or emblem has been displayed for an excessive period of time".

For clarification, will the Bill sponsor — I am able to take an intervention — tell me what "an excessive period of time" means?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

You will recall that I put the proposal out to consultation, and I prescribed certain categories of time periods. The FICT report suggested a week, so I put a week, two weeks, a month and two months. I got a lot of criticism from the Orange Order and unionist parties about the fact that — .

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

[Inaudible.]

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I listened, Timothy. That is the point.

I got a lot of criticism from people who said, "The marching season is three months", so I asked, "Should we remove that time frame and allow —?". If the flags go up for five months and the marching season lasts for three months, I think that a reasonable person — again, it keeps coming back to the reasonable person test — would say that five months is an excessive period of time. However, after the marching season — up to the end of September, for example — we have to allow for the fact that it may take a few weeks for people to get ladders or cherry pickers. Again, we are trying to be reasonable. That is the reason for the wording.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I remind everyone that this is not a back and forth, even though you are looking for information. It is about the general principles. We are not going through Consideration Stage. I ask Members to bear that in mind.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

OK, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I take that point. However, a lot of this detail adds to the principles. I will not ask the Bill sponsor to intervene on every question that I raise, but maybe she will address some of them when she is summing up.

Clause 1(4)(e) states:

"whether the flag or emblem is displayed for the purposes of celebration or commemoration".

Is it wrong or right to commemorate? Is it a negative or a positive to commemorate? I could commemorate a lot of stuff that I believe to be true, right and righteous and that has everything to do with sacrifice, but terrorist outfits could say the same for the terrorist dead — people who were blown up in the course of their activities. Does commemoration mean the same for them as it means for me?

The Bill states:

"whether the flag or emblem is displayed in a disrespectful manner".

What is meant by "disrespectful manner"?

The crux of my questions and the reason for my asking them is the fact that the Bill sponsor is putting the onus on the Department. The Bill states:

"For the purposes of this Act, there is a presumption that it is in the public interest to remove a flag or emblem if, in the opinion of the Department, one or more of the following apply".

That puts a further onus on the Department. The Department for Infrastructure not only has to remove the flag but has to decide whether it is a good flag or a bad flag. The Bill creates a flag police in the Department for Infrastructure, and I am not sure that that is the best place for it, when we consider the advice that we get from time to time from the PSNI about the removal of flags, the putting up of flags and everything that goes with that.

Clause 2 is "Sensitive places", and my colleague has already touched on that. What is "a shared communal place"? It lists "an interface area". There is great tension in interface areas, especially in Belfast. There is not so much in North Antrim or anywhere else, but there is in Belfast. You can see a scenario where the law enforcement agencies — in this case, the Department for Infrastructure along with the police and the contractor — could well take flags down from one side of an interface on one day and then decide, after eight hours, to move into the other side the next day, and that would cause a great gnashing of teeth. There will be an escalation of violence at the interface: not only will more flags be displayed, but there will be actual violence. The crux of the matter is that we are dabbling in something that we have struggled with for decades, and the Bill will not do it.

The Bill states:

"The Department may regard the following as a place where public services are provided— (a) school, (b) medical facility, (c) leisure centre, (d) library".

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will in a minute.

How far away from a library does that mean? Is it half a mile? Is it a mile? Is it out of sight? Remember that young people can go to a library to get a book about flags in order to learn about the flags of the world, and that is not perceived as a problem.

Then the Bill states:

"The Department may regard the following as a shared communal place— (a) shopping centre".

A shopping centre is a piece of private land.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way on that point?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

It is outside. The Bill does not speak to the private compound of any business, including a shopping centre.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member can sum it up in her winding-up speech at the end, but what about the car parks of a shopping centre, because that is still private land? There will be issues with that.

The Bill also states:

"any other place that persons of all national and cultural identities could reasonably be expected to have access to."

What on earth does that line mean?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

What will it mean for the legal enforcement of the Bill?

I will give way.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Clause 2 on sensitive places states that the Department "may". The Alliance Party is trying to instil the thought police into the Department.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy, can you speak into your microphone, please? We are having difficulties.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Bringing it back to the real world, I will give the example of Cullybackey. The Bill states:

"The Department may regard the following as a sensitive place— (a) a place where public services are provided".

We can read further down the Bill and see that it lists a school. Public authorities are exempt and can fly the flag without any problem. However, you can have a case where, for three or four months of the year, there are flags along the adjoining footpath. Are you trying to say that the school is permitted to fly the flag but that those who put up flags every year along the main street of Cullybackey will have to apply and go through the process? If they do not do that or if the flags are deemed to have been up for too long, the Department may take them down.

I move back to the billboard that the Bill sponsor was keen to say would be covered by the Bill. The problem in Newry was that half of the billboard was deemed to be on private land and the other half was on public land. Sinn Féin used that fact to say, "Nothing to do with us, guv; it is on private land". How will your Bill deal with an issue like that? I have yet to be convinced that the Bill will deal with anything. It will create more problems and more interfaces. It meddles in a section of our community, and it will raise tensions. The Alliance Party is absolutely oblivious to what it is trying to foist on communities.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I am sure that the Bill sponsor will address those points when she is on her feet. All of that is caveated by the fact that clause 1(7) states:

"This section does not apply in respect of a flag or emblem that is displayed by a public authority."

I was deeply offended when Belfast City Council decided to light up City Hall for what it termed "International Safe Abortion Day". I find that —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Paul, that is well outside the scope of the Bill.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

If a public authority such as a council were to decide to display a flag that I do not like along the whole of Royal Avenue or around Donegall Square, by the look of things, I would have no redress to challenge that.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

As I have just outlined, the flag in that case would be in the compound owned or controlled by a public authority or private business. A council could therefore erect a flag on their grounds, but the only authority that has ownership over the lighting columns is the Department. Councils do not have the authority to put up flags up and down Royal Avenue or anywhere else.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. That is useful.

I will close on this, because I have previously spoken at length on the issue. I worry about the Bill. I do not believe that it would do what it says on the blue pages. I believe that it would create further tension and difficulties in our communities. One does not need to have the foresight of Cathbad the druid to know that the Bill would not be good for Ulster. It would make community tensions worse, not better. It might even lead to further tension, segregation and division. That is something that we are trying to fight against, not encourage.

I ask the Bill sponsor to think again about proceeding with the legislation. I mean that respectfully and honourably. I have said that I appreciate everybody's hard work on their Members' Bills. I appreciate what their Bill means to them, the work that they have to do and the hoops through which they have to jump. We, however, have a right in this place to scrutinise law and a responsibility to pass appropriate law, and I do not think that the Bill passes the test.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill, but, first, I will address a comment that I heard last week from the Alliance Benches. It was, in my view, a typical Alliance response to what were well-articulated comments on the unworkability of the Bill, and my colleague has ably made more such comments in his contribution. Sadly, however, that critique was conflated with somehow being an attack on the Bill Office staff. I am by no means alone in believing that the legislation is vastly unworkable. Many other Members have raised similar concerns, but that is not a reflection on the hard-working Bill Office staff. Rather, it is a reflection on the Bill sponsor and supporters of her Member's Bill, which must be able to stand up to scrutiny. The process of scrutiny inevitably involves criticism of the Bill and the dissecting of its components to determine what it would mean in reality. It would be unwise of the Assembly simply to rely on the arguments of the sponsor of any Bill alone. We all play a part in what is an important process, ably facilitated by the Bill Office. I record my gratitude to the Bill Office staff, who have an ever-expanding workload.

The Bill sponsor knows what she wants to see in her vision for Northern Ireland, and there is nothing wrong with that vision. Indeed, I do not think that any of us would disagree with Northern Ireland's reaching its fullest potential, but, much like what the Bill tries to do, glossing over the hard practicalities and deep complexity of life in Northern Ireland will not create meaningful change or make a difference. It could literally make things worse.

The first few lines of the Bill demand an action by saying that the Department "must", but it then relinquishes any authority at all by referring to the broad parameters of "public interest". Then, unhelpfully, it hands the Department for Infrastructure a very big ball of tangled string by relying solely on the Department's opinion. Is the opinion of the Department reliable, unchanging or even realistic? Would that opinion change depending on who ultimately was leading the Department or on the internal unit that would be given the monumental task of enforcing the legislation in its current form on our streets?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I will, surely.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you. I think that you have just made my argument for me. I want to see a robust, workable, consistent Bill, which will hopefully become an Act of the Assembly, in place, so that, regardless of who the Infrastructure Minister is in the next mandate or beyond, the general, wider public knows exactly how flags will be treated, and it will not be at the whim of a Minister. I will give an example in my summation of where there are differences in policy around that. It is about consistency. You have just made the argument as to why we need it here; because of the complexity of our Administration.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you. I would make a further point: I have not been here overly long, but one thing that I have noticed is that, on these Benches, we are quite willing to give way. In the past few days, I have seen real reluctance from your party members to give way. It was quite evident in recent times, perhaps because the tone of the debate or certain criticisms from these Benches were not particularly welcome. I put on record that I am proud of my party for its willingness to give way and allow debate to take place. The Speaker is also keen to see that happen.

Would the "opinion" that is referred to in the Bill change depending on what party held the Ministry? That is one of several important questions. I cannot resist the urge to refer to my constituency and, of course, the infamous Sinn Féin billboard at the Egyptian Arch. The Bill covers that very subject, as I note that, under "Interpretation" at clause 7, billboards are mentioned specifically. When I look at the facts of that particular billboard case and apply the rules, I wonder genuinely what the outcome would be. Of course, I am speaking about something that I have already dealt with: I tabled a motion back in January, which was backed by the majority in the House; I contacted Newry, Mourne and Down District Council's planning division to request enforcement action; and I contacted historic environment division, given that the Egyptian Arch is a listed structure and therefore planning permission for such a billboard to be installed so close to it would be refused. Those combined actions resulted in the billboard's coming down, and rightly so.

I wonder whether, if the provisions in the Bill were in operation, those actions would be taken by the Department under the leadership of a Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister. There is no doubt that there would be public interest in doing so, but whose "opinion" would count? Would the Minister be consulted? I assume so. Therein lies my scepticism about the effectiveness of the Bill in its current form. In the billboard case, the Infrastructure Minister was largely indifferent to an illegally erected structure, bearing her party logo and located on DFI property beside a listed structure, namely the Egyptian Arch. What faith can we therefore have if the Member's Bill should pass and become law?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. It could be that it goes right to the very top because the Bill does not define who actually makes the final decision: who decides or has an "opinion" on what is a good flag, a bad flag, a bad billboard or a good billboard. It could, however, be a local office. It could be a regional office manager who decides that. That might create a patchwork throughout Northern Ireland when it comes to what is considered to be a good flag or a bad flag.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Yes. I agree.

It has been said repeatedly that the Department for Infrastructure has enough to be getting on with fixing our roads, replacing our footpaths and ensuring that our motorways are up to spec.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way.

Knowing what we now know, and having read the blue pages in front of us, can the Member set out what is in the Bill, if the same situation were to happen again, to enable that billboard at the Egyptian Arch to be taken down in a more timely manner? All that I see in the Bill is that it is open to political influence and "opinion". It uses the word "may". All that we would have is more problems. The issue of a billboard's being erected, half of which was on DFI land and half on private property, has not been dealt with by the Bill sponsor. What is your understanding of that? Does the Bill give the Department any power to go on to private property that is adjoining public land to remove a billboard?

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Member makes a very good point. My understanding of it is that the portion that is on DFI property — or public property, if you like — should be subject to that type of Bill. I am not sure that private property should be treated any differently if it is within very close range of the street, any street furniture or sensitive place —

[Interruption.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sorry, Gareth. The Member is on his feet and has a right to be heard. Go ahead.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you.

Even with a Minister who is, ideally, fully committed to the Bill's objectives, does the Bill sponsor really think that DFI has the capacity to meet the Bill's objectives in its current format?

Existing laws have obviously been tentatively used, given the real complexity of the issue, with particular reference to flags. There has been much mention of that in the deliberations on the Bill so far.

Do I feel that the Bill in its current format will deliver what the Bill sponsor wishes? No. The reliance on what are clearly wide variables, using terminology such as "opinion" and "public interest", does not reflect the realities and complexities of divided communities. Rather than enable us to heal from or deal with division, the Bill could easily do the opposite, and that is why I will not support it at this stage.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I begin by acknowledging the work that the Member has put into bringing the Bill before the House. That is important, because I do not want my concerns about the Bill to be interpreted as suggesting that there is not a problem here; there absolutely is. Flags should not be used to intimidate people, to mark territory or to tell someone that they are not welcome in a place where they live. There is no legitimate cultural defence for the display of the flag of a proscribed organisation, nor should any of us be comfortable with flags being erected anonymously, left indefinitely and eventually hanging in tatters from public property. At the same time, legitimate cultural expression is legitimate cultural expression. The respectful display of a national flag or an emblem associated with cultural celebration or commemoration is not equivalent to intimidation or paramilitarism. Shared space should not have to be culturally empty space either.

The difficulty is working out where the lines sit in practice, and I have considerable sympathy for the Member, because she is trying to do something that, frankly, government should have done a long time ago. We have talked about the issue for years. We established the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition, and its final report was published in 2021, yet, here we are, five years later, still debating who is responsible when flags are attached to public property, what powers exist, who should exercise them and what happens when nobody is prepared to act. That is a failure of government, so I genuinely commend the Member for what she is trying to do: fill a vacuum that continues to cause distress across communities in Northern Ireland.

I know what it is like to bring forward a private Member's Bill on an area on which government has not acted. You do so because, if a private Member's Bill does not try to move something forward, nothing happens at all. However, there are realistic expectations of what a private Member's Bill can do, and I am increasingly concerned that we are coming up against those exact limitations with this Bill.

I have listened to the contributions over the last number of days and weeks, and I am quite sympathetic to a lot of what has been said. The central question for me is not whether something needs to be done — it absolutely does — but whether the Bill creates the right architecture to do that, and I am not convinced that it does. With a private Member's Bill, scope is entirely limited, and the scope that is needed to address the issue needs to be much broader, which, again, is why I am sympathetic to the Member, because it is government that needs to be doing that.

As others have said, the obvious issue is about responsibility, and the Bill places responsibility primarily with the Department for Infrastructure. I appreciate that there is a practical logic to that, in that what we are talking about is attached to street furniture, much of which belongs to DFI, but the decisions that the Bill asks officials to make are not really infrastructure decisions. If something creates a road safety hazard, that absolutely is an infrastructure issue, but deciding whether a particular flag is intimidatory, threatening, offensive, abusive, insulting or antagonistic —

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am not trying to have a gotcha moment, but the Member will be aware that section 78F of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was inserted by the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, placing a duty on the Department to consider its actions in that space. A lot of the wording from that portion of the Act is in my Bill. The Department for Infrastructure does have a duty in that space. It may feel a wee bit abstract because of the nature of its departmental responsibilities, but a core part of that Department's statutory functions is to ensure that it takes account of the issues that the Member has just outlined.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I thank the sponsor for making that point. That is fair, but, given the limited scope of what the Bill can achieve, it has to be put into a much wider context. I do not necessarily agree that the Department for Infrastructure should do that. It should be done at a much more senior, overarching level, given the nature of the issues that it raises, such as intimidation or distress and community issues. We are asking DFI to make profoundly difficult judgements, involving law, policing, equality, human rights, culture and community relations. Do we really want the Department that is responsible for fixing potholes on our roads to be responsible for that?

I would be the first to say that this is one Government and that you should all be working together, but the reality is that you do not. Certainly, if someone is going to take the lead on this, if anything, it has to come from the Executive Office. Indeed, when the Bill was first tabled, my assumption was that that was where it would have gone. That summarises my concern about where the Bill sits. I just do not think that DFI is the appropriate body.

As well as that, we would be putting civil servants into an extraordinarily difficult position. When we contact them about issues to do with the roads, we receive a fairly processed response. This issue, however, comes down to people's opinions and community relations, which goes outside what we should expect DFI to do. I take the Bill sponsor's point; I am not sure that that was the right approach. It is what it is, but I am not sure that I want to move forward with it. If they remove a flag, one part of the community may accuse them of suppressing legitimate cultural expression. If they leave it in place, someone else will say that the Department has tolerated intimidation. That is already a concern. More often than not, I have contacted DFI locally in relation to removing not just flags but political placards on roundabouts and things, and it is reluctant to do any of that because of the community pushback that it will get.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Yes, go ahead.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

What you have described there is the status quo. People are flying their flags unauthorised, but, when others contact the flags reporting line or go to the Department on any number of issues to raise concerns, none of those matters are dealt with. There is a complete imbalance where the silent majority of people, who are aggrieved by flags and emblems, have to tolerate them. You are wrong: there is no balancing act at the moment, and everything is going in one direction.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I agree, and that is why I pre-empted my contribution by saying that there is an issue. Something needs to be done, but this is not the right vehicle to do it. The responsibility should not sit solely with the Department for Infrastructure, whose remit is considerably different from what we are trying to do here. The Member has approached it from a practical perspective, because this is essentially about street furniture that belongs to DFI. To me, however, this is much wider than that, in terms of community relations and intimidatory behaviour. Ultimately, what happens now are the issues that I am outlining. It just does not happen, because DFI does not have the confidence to do that and it does not fall within its remit. All of this needs to happen at a much more holistic level.

We will end up in a situation where we do nothing, and that makes me conflicted about the Bill. I absolutely agree that something needs to be done, but I do not agree with how we are doing it. Therefore, I will not support the Bill, but nor will I suppress it; I will probably abstain. If anything, there is a good conversation to have about what the Government are failing to do. I commend Ms Bradshaw for being the one to bring the matter to the House, but, unfortunately, this is not the right practical thing to do.

I am also concerned about the language in clause 1. There is a significant difference between "intimidatory or threatening" and something being "offensive". People are entitled to be offended, but that does not automatically mean that the state should remove the thing that offends them. Indeed, there are flags, posters, political messages and symbols that I personally dislike, but that cannot be the test. Terms such as "offensive", "antagonistic" or:

"not conducive to good community relations"

need considerably more examination. The debate over recent days and weeks has demonstrated why that should be. Members across the House have produced examples and have asked, "Will this or that be caught? What about a national flag, a sporting emblem, a political solidarity flag or something associated with a particular commemoration?". If reasonable people across the House are asking those questions, can we say that the Bill can confidently be interpreted and implemented to address those concerns?

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. I will use a flippant example, but it points to some of the issues that may arise. I may not agree with a sporting team's flag. My husband supports a sporting team. However, if somebody puts up a flag in the vicinity and somebody else takes offence to that football team's flag being there, they can put that into the online portal. We would be using Civil Service time, energy and money to pursue all of that when the Department should be going out and fixing the lamp posts that the flags are on and fixing the potholes. It seems pretty flippant, but that is what the Bill could create: a really bizarre situation in which people just take offence at anything.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for the contribution. That is kind of what I was setting out when talking about which Department is the appropriate one to address the issue. Again, we could take offence at anything that is hung off a lamp post. On what basis do we bring it down? Do we bring it down because we disagree with it, or is it genuinely intimidatory, meaning that we, as elected representatives, have to respond to that?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Go ahead.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

As outlined at the start of the Bill, there is the absolute duty under those "intimidatory" categories, and there is then the "presumption". To enact the presumption and work your way through it, there is a process through which departmental officials would have to look at the vicinity, the circumstances and the reason for the flag being flown. As the Member said, maybe a sporting tournament or something similar is coming up. There is no automatic premise that departmental officials or their contractors would take flags down in the scenarios that you outline. Again, it is not about one or two complaints and then the Department jumps. There is a balancing act, and we have talked about striking the balance in that presumptive "reasonable person" test.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

As with all these things, there is context, and that is important. I am pleased that that is featured in the Bill, but, again, is it the Department for Infrastructure that should be considering that context? I am not entirely sure that it is. If anything, you would nearly need to build a new unit into the Department that looks at that specifically. Again, it is not something that I am concerned about. Ultimately, I am not sure that any of us wants to see a new commission, but, if we are genuine about tackling the issue, we need to find something. Otherwise, the Bill will be voted for or not voted for. If it is not voted for, we will do nothing more.

I always come at this from a practical perspective and interest. I am loath to burden a Department that I spend hours and days writing to on issues that they cannot fix when this should be the responsibility of someone else. That is the balance that we, as elected representatives, need to consider as well. If we put those responsibilities on to a particular Department, that comes at a cost in resource and in balancing what is there and prioritising — we hear that word more often than not — and —.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Yes, go ahead.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

On the issue of resource, the reality of the situation is that Northern Ireland is beset by sectarian flags; flags that communities do not want; and flags that communities are intimidated by. The Bill gives the opportunity to regulate and deal with those circumstances, and that will come at a cost. It is a cost that the community wants. Our constituents tell us that they want us to spend money on this. At various times of the year, I regularly receive complaints from residents about having flags taken down, and it is not just about whom you go to and whom you ask. Yes, of course, there will be a cost involved in that, but that is what the community wants us to do. People want us to spend money doing that.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Through the Chair, I appreciate that. Equally, however, I receive an awful lot more correspondence about people wanting their roads to be fixed and their street lights to be lit. That is the balance that we will have to decide on: what is the priority? To be fair, I also receive correspondence expressing concern about flags, but that is nowhere near the scale of the other correspondence. That does not mean that the issue is not there. It just means that, if we are to make this decision, we have to recognise what the consequence of that will be. I am not sure that this vehicle is worth it.

I will say it 100 times over: what the Member is doing is commendable, and the Member is absolutely right to tackle the issue when the Executive have not, but I am sure that the limitations of a private Member's Bill meant that she had to it in a way that means that it is not the appropriate vehicle.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Go ahead.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I do not want to press too hard on the point, but, in the debate, we have not heard from any side of the House — certainly not from one side — what the alternative to the Bill is; indeed, Ms Sugden should also address that. There is a clear requirement from the community that we deal with this as a societal matter in Northern Ireland, but we hear no alternatives.

That is why it is important that we not only commend Paula's work to deliver the Bill to its Second Stage but ensure that it passes Second Stage and moves to Committee Stage, where many of the detailed questions posed by you and others can be addressed and where we can invite all the appropriate organisations to make their views on the Bill known, so that we can dig down into it, and, yes, cost will be part of that as well.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Claire, before you resume, I remind everyone that the debate is about the general principles. Stewart outlined a point about alternatives and the fact that the Bill would go to the Committee for its consideration, but Members absolutely have the right to talk in general about that. Continue, Claire.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. I listened to the Member for East Antrim's point, but is that not an example of what I mentioned on a previous day of the debate, which was "Sir Humphrey" syndrome, whereby people say, "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it"? That is not the way to approach the issue.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I think so. The House has been criticised in the past for not writing good legislation. I have done that myself. I absolutely support the principle, but I do not support the vehicle.

With reference to some of Mr Dickson's points, I fully expect, given that he has colleagues in the Executive, that he will use that leverage to encourage his colleagues to do something in that respect as part of a collective Government. I know that people will shake their head and say, "That is not realistic", but that is what you do when you agree to be in government. You try to make those changes from within, and, if you cannot, that is for you to answer.

I cannot remember Stewart's other point, but I do not want to wax lyrical about why I do or do not agree with the Bill. I do not think that anyone in the House does not recognise that there is a problem. I hope that each of us will take that responsibility forward in the new mandate and say that we will tackle the issue head-on and use a vehicle that will look at it in a way that is sympathetic to all the concerns related to it. I do not think that that is what the Bill is.

Stewart's point was that we can deal with such issues at Committee Stage, but I have an issue with the fundamental structure of the Bill, and I am not sure that amendments will fix that. If anything, any amendments that I would propose would probably not be within the Bill's scope and therefore would not be accepted. I am not sure that we can do what needs to be done in order for me to be content with our taking it forward. It is only for that reason that I will not support its progression to Committee Stage, but, again, I will abstain, because I am trying to be balanced about what we need to do.

I will not continue for much longer, because I am starting to repeat myself. I commend the Member for what she is trying to do with the Bill. I do not think that it is the right vehicle. The Department for Infrastructure is there to do the things that we expect it to do, but the issue needs to be dealt with in a manner that is much more overarching and preferably by the Executive Office. I am mindful of the fact that the nature of many of the issues, particularly those concerning community relations, means that the Bill needs to be held by the Executive Office.

I will put this back to all the people who are concerned: hold us, as politicians, to account on what needs to be done.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I was just wrapping up, but yes.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. I want to touch on her point about community relations, because that is really important. When we look at constituencies such as mine, we see that there have been good working relationships. When the Twelfth demonstration happened in Irvinestown, GAA flags that were up to celebrate a local club's sporting achievement came down to facilitate the Orange. However, if we impose regulations on communities, some communities may feel tension as a result. We need to work with communities, rather than impose things on them, because that creates bad community feeling.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I agree, but, to be fair to the Bill sponsor, we are not doing that. The response is to recognise that we need to do something, but, equally, I agree with Mr Brooks that it is not the right thing just because it is the only thing. I certainly charge the —.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

OK.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member has spoken eloquently about the Bill. She has given a number of reasons for why she feels that it is not the right vehicle, yet she has said that she will abstain. I understand the wish to be balanced, but I encourage her to have the courage of her convictions, even though her reasons may differ from mine, and say that the Bill is not the right vehicle. If it is not the right vehicle, we should vote against it.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

It is not the right vehicle, but it is the right principle, and for that reason —.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?