Northern Ireland Assembly, 24 June 2025

544 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It is time to move to a SEN-first approach to school placements. Last week, I met children who attend Greenwood Assessment Centre and their parents. I was deeply concerned to learn that up to 25 children there have no confirmed place in P3 for September. Those children have been well known to the Education Authority since they were in nursery. They are the children with special educational needs who need stability, support and the right environment to thrive. Instead, they face uncertainty and stress, and their families are left to navigate a system that simply does not work.

Sadly, this is not a one-off. Year after year, we see the same failures in properly planning and providing for SEN children. Many children are not placed in the right setting or end up on a reduced timetable. As I speak, more than 200 children across the North are still without a place for the new term. Many officials may point to the number being a lot higher at this time last year, but I do not believe that we should look on that as progress. It is continued failure. It is an unacceptable reality that is completely avoidable.

The same children are left at the back of the line year after year. We need to put SEN children first in the placement process. That is not just a sound bite: it means prioritising those children's needs and putting them at the heart of planning, funding and delivery. It means ensuring that no child is left behind because of delays or poor decision-making. The Minister of Education must step in and take urgent action. Families deserve better. Those children deserve better. I will continue to stand with the affected families and to push for real solutions. I will also continue to hold the Minister and the Education Authority to account until every child has the support and the school place to which they are entitled.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Last night, at an event in Fivemiletown that I attended alongside my colleagues Carla Lockhart MP, Deborah Erskine MLA and local councillors and at which there was a contribution from former Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) president David Brown, I heard a message that was powerful, heartfelt and deeply concerning. The message from our farming community was clear: the changes proposed in the nutrients action programme (NAP) are not workable.

Farmers were angry that the proposals, which include stricter phosphorus limits, mandatory low-emission slurry-spreading equipment and enforced uncultivated buffer strips, represent sweeping changes that would place an unbearable burden on our farmers. As farmers stress, they are not minor adjustments but fundamental shifts that threaten the sustainability of family farms across Northern Ireland.

What is most troubling is that the proposals were drawn up without proper consultation with the very people whom they affect most. Farmers feel ignored, sidelined and disrespected. That is not how we build a sustainable future for agriculture. That is not how we build rural livelihoods. I stand with our farmers in calling for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to go back to the drawing board and deliver a plan that supports environmental goals and economic survival.

Farmers want DAERA to engage meaningfully with the sector and to listen to those who work on the land every day. We all want to protect our environment — we all want clean rivers and healthy lakes — but sustainability must not come at the cost of survival, so we must do it in a way that is fair, balanced and rooted in reality. Along with my party, I will continue to ensure that the voice of the farmer is heard.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will speak about the disaster that is the A5. What we have witnessed with the A5 is nothing short of government failure. It has been 18 years since the Executive first gave the scheme the green light, yet not an inch of road has been delivered. The delays are not down to bad luck but are the result of systematic failure by the Department for Infrastructure and the Executive to deliver critical infrastructure. Time and again, legal challenges have succeeded because the Department did not do its job properly; because the statutory processes were mishandled; because climate responsibilities were ignored; and because the basics — the absolute basics — were not done right. The judge made it clear that it was as a result of a series of shortcomings and shortcuts taken by the Department that his judgement, reached yesterday, was shocking.

It is not just a technical failure but a failure that has cost lives. The A5 is one of the most dangerous roads on the island. Families were promised action. They were told that change was coming. Those promises have been broken, and, while we delay, communities in the north-west suffer the consequences. The A5 is a lifeline for safety, regional growth and all-island connectivity. It is as much about economic justice as it is about public safety. Let me be clear: if the road were to run through Belfast, it would have been built years ago. The truth is that the north-west is still waiting for the same level of investment, the same urgency and the same political will.

Today, I say to this to the Executive: enough. The time for excuses is over. The Department must take responsibility for its repeated failings, and the Executive must finally show leadership and deliver the A5 in full, without delay and with urgency. Anything less is a betrayal of the people whom we serve.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I take the opportunity to highlight ongoing issues that impact on special schools in Newry and Armagh. I recently visited Lisanally Special School and met its principal, Siobhan Scowcroft, staff and pupils. First, I record my thanks to and continued support for the school and its staff for the fantastic work that they do. As I mentioned, however, like other special schools, Lisanally faces issues, many of which I will not have time to highlight today. Issues such as recruiting and retaining appropriately trained staff are almost daily challenges that the school faces. In the words of those whom I spoke to, "School leaders did not create the workforce crisis in SEN schools, but they are the ones who are left to deal with it". That is an untenable position for school leaders to be in. They should be better supported.

In addition, Lisanally Special School, like other schools, has to navigate an ever-ageing building that repeatedly presents maintenance problems, such as a leaking roof, blocked drains and overflowing guttering.

Those issues, coupled with an ever-growing population, mean that the school is stuck for space and faces the prospect of not being able to hold whole-school events because there is no suitable space for pupils and staff. The fact that the school is in line for a new enhancement scheme is welcome, but that will only address the short-term need. Ultimately, in the long term, Lisanally Special School needs a new build.

Finally, there is the issue of the communication between Education, Health and their agencies, which has been highlighted. From respite care to short-break provision, mental health support and clinical psychology, it is clear that we need to listen to the staff on the ground, who are crying out for more and improved joined-up thinking and action. More must be done to support Lisanally Special School. I will continue to work with my colleagues and the school's principal and staff to ensure that that is the case.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I rise to highlight an issue that affects thousands of people across Northern Ireland, often silently and invisibly: coeliac disease. For those of you who are not aware, people with coeliac disease are often described as simply "gluten-intolerant", which means that they cannot eat anything containing a protein found in wheat, rye and barley. I recently had the opportunity to meet representatives from Coeliac UK to learn more about that serious autoimmune condition. Coeliac UK conducts outstanding research on the disease and is one of the largest funders of such research in the UK.

The disease is far more common than people think. It affects approximately one in 100 people, yet, shockingly, only about 36% of those who have the condition have received a diagnosis. For example, in Northern Ireland alone, it is estimated that over 10,000 people remain undiagnosed. On average, it takes 13 years for someone with coeliac disease to get a proper diagnosis. That means 13 years of unexplained symptoms, misdiagnoses and a compromised quality of life. The consequences of those delays go far beyond general inconvenience. If untreated, the disease can lead to serious long-term health implications, including osteoporosis, infertility and even certain cancers. It also places a substantial and avoidable burden on our health service through repeated consultations, unnecessary tests and misdirected treatments.

Coeliac UK's strategy focuses on earlier diagnosis, increased public awareness and improved provision of gluten-free food. Whether it is a matter of training healthcare professionals; ensuring that dietary needs are met in schools; adopting standardised coeliac guidance across the health service; or supporting gluten-free provision in public catering, especially in school lunches, we have the tools and the responsibility to act. In light of that, today I will write to the Health Minister to ask for a meeting with Coeliac UK to discuss the scale of that often undiagnosed disease in Northern Ireland and explore what steps can be taken to raise greater public and clinical awareness of it. The impact of delayed diagnosis is simply too significant to ignore, and we need to ensure that more people receive the support, care and recognition that they urgently need.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the decision by Belfast City Council to abandon its flawed policy of defining the city centre as a "holiday resort" so that large retailers could open on a Sunday morning. Sunday mornings are one of the few times that our low-paid and overworked retail staff can rely on to be off to enjoy, spend with their families or, indeed, attend their place of worship. I welcome Sinn Féin's decision to U-turn on the proposal and stand with the DUP, trade unions and other political parties to vote it down.

Of course, the policy was championed by the Alliance Party, which claimed that, by opening the Tesco store in the city centre on a Sunday, we would have an economic revolution and a booming economy in Belfast. Given that party's support for the Windsor framework and the economic damage that it inflicts on businesses across Northern Ireland, its economic illiteracy is not surprising. I pay tribute to the trade union movement, workers and community voices that forced politicians into a U-turn and the abandonment of the policy.

If political parties are interested in developing our city centre economically, they have the opportunity at 3.00 pm today to stand in the Great Hall with the Belfast night tsar, who has had over 1,000 businesses sign up to the campaign to extend public transport at night throughout the year. I pay tribute to my colleague Deborah Erskine MLA, who continues to champion that vital cause. That will be the test for those parties that support workers.

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

Like my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin, I want to touch on yesterday's judgement on the A5, but I will not spend all my time talking about the A5, because that judgement is a symptom of a much deeper problem that is at the heart of our system of government and our politics: incompetence and a crisis of accountability. Yesterday's judgement was shocking. People are alive now who will lose their life as a result of the A5's being delayed. Justice McAlinden was quite clear about that in his judgement yesterday. The A5 has been the subject of repeated delays and challenges. Later today, we will have the opportunity to debate the ineptitude of the Department in how it managed yesterday's appeal, but it is clear that it is part of a systemic problem with governance in Northern Ireland. We need only look at the other delays in critical infrastructure: reviving NI Water; delivering on the maternity hospital at the Royal; and the failure, after a few weeks, to get going on Northern Ireland's housing targets as set out in the Programme for Government. Although 6,000 houses were promised in two years, barely a thousand will be started this year, if we are lucky.

It gets to the heart of a problem — a crisis — that we have in this society and these politics, which is that the public do not trust us to deliver on the things that matter to them. People in the west of Ulster — the whole Province of Ulster — are worried about the safety of their families because the A5 will not now be built for a long time. People looking at Lough Neagh will be wondering whether that precious natural resource will ever recover. People having babies in the years to come will wonder whether they will be able to have those babies in a proper state-of-the-art maternity unit. We have failed consistently to show leadership. The two big parties have walked away from government repeatedly — repeatedly — thus delaying the delivery of the A5, delaying the delivery of the maternity hospital and delaying the delivery of Casement Park.

This a problem that touches on Civil Service competence, but it also touches on political leadership, because the people who are in charge in this place do not think that politics is about delivery; they think that it is about photo opportunities. They think that it is about getting your mug on social media and in the papers and then, every few years at an election, trading off tribalism and getting back into office. All the while, our public services sink further into disrepair and chaos, and major projects that are essential for the preservation of life are delayed. There is Civil Service incompetence, and there is political leadership. It is a crisis in accountability in our politics in Northern Ireland — a genuine crisis.

Mr Speaker, you have talked about the abysmal quality of debate and scrutiny in the Chamber, but it goes beyond that. The official Opposition's job is to stand up and speak for the people —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up

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

— of Northern Ireland, who have been failed —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr O'Toole.

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

— for far too long.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The Executive have failed to get a grip of the housing crisis, and, despite talk in the Programme for Government of making housing a priority, the truth is that the Executive have failed to act. Rents have shot up, and the Executive have refused to implement rent controls or rent reductions. Evictions have continued for Housing Executive tenants and those who are in the private rented sector, and the Executive have refused to implement a no-fault eviction ban.

One of the most cruel aspects of the crisis is the impact that it is having on children and young people. Whilst the impact that homelessness is having on children and young people is a daily feature of mainstream news in the South, it has been normalised and, quite often, forgotten about in the North. We need to see action from the Executive to address the scourge of homelessness right across our society for everybody, but particularly for our children and young people.

I pay tribute to the primary schools that are represented in the Public Gallery and at Stormont today.

They are primary-school children, but they are activists from Edmund Rice schools right across the North. They are here to highlight the impact of homelessness on children and young people. They are from Armagh Christian Brothers' Primary School, John Paul II Primary School in my constituency and St Patrick's Primary School in north Belfast. They are student council members who went out of their way to organise a petition and get people to sign it to show their disgust at the scourge of homelessness in our society. They have already gathered 1,200 signatures, which is a tremendous achievement. They have been working with the Westcourt homeless centre, NICCY and others through a convention on the rights of children perspective and have highlighted the fact that over 18,000 children in the North are homeless, which is completely unacceptable and completely unfair. I welcome them today, and I pay tribute to them for their actions, the petition and the work that they have done and will continue to do.

That is, of course, not to forget people who are forced into temporary accommodation. Over 5,000 families are living in temporary accommodation without a permanent, secure place to call home. There are over 5,700 children who are growing up homeless in Belfast alone. Almost half of those children — almost half — live in my constituency of West Belfast. That is disgraceful. The number of children living in temporary accommodation over the past five years should not be normalised, but the figure has doubled over that period. Children's futures and well-being are effectively being destroyed by a lack of safe, secure and permanent housing, and poor housing has a massive impact on mental health, physical well-being, access to education and social and emotional well-being. It should not be up to the people in the Public Gallery, but fair play to them for putting pressure on the Executive and the Minister for their inaction.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Every child in our society matters, and their future is in our hands. It has been two years this week since the publication of Ray Jones's review of children's social care services. That review contained 53 recommendations, ranging from a single agency for families and children, which actually works and delivers, to smaller residential homes for children in care and mixed skills in those homes and in the community.

Over the past few years, since being elected to the Assembly and while sitting on the Health Committee, I have had the opportunity to meet many of the young people who shaped that review. I thank Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) and Include Youth for introducing me to those very inspirational young people. All they want is to determine their own future, but, to do that, they need the best start and help along the way.

I have also had the opportunity to ensure that the issue is championed through the Health Committee. We have brought the Health Department and trusts to the Committee to answer, on a quarterly basis, where they are with each of the review's recommendations, but, unfortunately, we have not gone far enough. I understand that funding issues are often in the way of major change, but there is no excuse for delay when it comes to the implementation of policy recommendations that will make lives better. We have seen some improvements, but we need to go further.

One of the issues, in particular, that I want to touch on is respite. We have heard from many families across Northern Ireland about the issue of respite — short-term breaks that can really prevent crisis in the future for families who will then turn to long-term care. I welcomed the £13 million that was announced by the Minister. That should be welcomed, and it was, indeed, welcomed across the Chamber, but we now need to see long-term implementation of the changes that are needed in the workforce and in our community.

Every issue adds up to determine a better future for every young person under the care of our government and our state. I will continue to work with every organisation that has a role to play in shaping those young people's lives and, most importantly, will continue to stand up for them and with them to determine their own future.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I know that, later today, there will be a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister, but, listening to the rhetoric in the Chamber this morning about the A5, I feel that it is important to stand up and put on record some facts for people, particularly the SDLP.

At the outset, I say that my sympathies are with all those who have lost loved ones or have been seriously injured along the A5 route.

Everybody in the argument understands that there is a road safety concern with the A5, but it is also about fairness for people in how that project is delivered.

Climate change — the climate change legislation with the net zero targets — was the main factor in the decision at the High Court yesterday. I would like to remind the SDLP that its Infrastructure Minister was in place when that climate change legislation went through the Assembly. It should have realised the consequences for the Department for Infrastructure from the net zero targets in the Climate Change Act. That is fact. The DUP consistently raised in the Chamber at that time the point that those net zero targets were going to have a severe impact on Departments and the Executive, yet those clear concerns were not heeded by the SDLP. In fact, it wanted tougher and stricter net zero targets.

I find it quite funny, therefore, that, over the past 24 hours, the SDLP, which is supposed to be such an effective Opposition here at Stormont, is now rolling back on the climate change and net zero targets that it hailed in the Assembly in 2022. It is rolling back on those. I heard it yesterday in the media, so I find it quite hypocritical of the SDLP that its Members would stand up in the Chamber today and roll back.

The Climate Change Act needs to be repealed because of the problems that it has created for the delivery of major road infrastructure projects. I am concerned about what that will mean for infrastructure in Northern Ireland. I am glad to see that the SDLP has come late to the party and joined the DUP in recognising those problems.

Lastly, farmers are facing huge uncertainty about their land that has been vested, stripped and left unrecognisable. I hope that, following the High Court ruling, that uncertainty is lifted very quickly for those affected landowners.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members, before I move on, the last four contributors to Members' statements were in the Chamber after the start of the session, and that is fair enough because there was time to accommodate them. However, I will always accommodate first those who are there at the start of Members' statements, and, in that instance, party order will not be recognised. Therefore, if you want to have the best chance of being called — today, all were, but that is not always the case — make sure that you are in your place at the start of Members' statements.

Ministerial Statement

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have received notice from the Minister for Infrastructure that she wishes to make a statement. I call the Minister for Infrastructure.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle,

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker]

and I thank you for the opportunity to address the Assembly. This statement will update the Assembly on the outcome of the forensic accountant's investigation into the reasons why NI Water was unable to live within its resource budget allocation in the 2024-25 financial year. My decision to appoint a forensic accountant in March was taken because protecting public funds is of the utmost importance, particularly in light of the ongoing wider pressures faced not only in my Department but across all public services. My intention remains that any learning from this investigation will be useful for all parties and help to prevent such an occurrence in future.

NI Water, as a non-departmental public body (NDPB), is required to live within its budget, just as all NDPBs are required to do. Whilst I recognise that the budget allocation fell short of what was originally identified as needed, the fact remains that, as an NDPB, NI Water should have prioritised its budget accordingly.

Turning to the report, first, I thank PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for completing its work within a challenging time frame and NI Water for its cooperation during the process. The report is being prepared for publication and will be published on my Department's website in the next few days. I have reviewed its content and am now in a position to share the findings with Members.

The report sets out that any direction by the board of NI Water to overspend without the prior agreement of the Department is technically a breach of 'Managing Public Money NI' (MPMNI). Had I not taken my decision on 27 March to allocate an additional £3 million to NI Water, just four days before the end of the financial year, NI Water would most definitely have incurred such a breach of MPMNI.

Put simply, had I not come to the company's aid, it would have overspent.

It is also worth highlighting the fact that the report highlighted a lot of movement in budget estimates during the last six weeks of the financial year. The potential overspend at NI Water varied from £7 million in February to £3 million at the end of the financial year, which was just a matter of weeks later, and then declined further to £1·4 million after the year-end close. The lack of certainty at that late stage in the financial year clearly shows a need for better budgetary control. What is also clear from the report is that the NI Water board did not base its financial decisions on the budget that it had — in other words, the amount allocated by the Department. Instead, the board based those decisions on the larger amount that it felt was needed, despite not having that money to spend. PwC describes that as a "significant limitation". I find it difficult to understand how a board can monitor operating costs when its budget is not aligned to the allocation from the Department. That is clearly a fundamental flaw in oversight and governance processes.

Going forward, to avoid future overspend, it is clear that the starting point for budgetary decisions and the monitoring of spend is that they should be based on the amount that has actually been allocated rather than on a higher figure that has not. While I appreciate that NI Water has a large number of variable costs that depend on issues outside its control, the report clearly highlights several issues relating to the fluctuations that could have been better controlled throughout the 2024-25 financial year.

First, the report points to overestimations of need at the start of the year, based upon eventualities that did not materialise. The scale of the overestimation meant that what NI Water thought that it needed at the start of the year was considerably higher than what was required. Indeed, the report indicates that that pattern of overestimating need has persisted for each of the past three years. What that has meant is that, in 2024-25, there was a £25 million variance between what NI Water said that it needed at the start of the year and its final out-turn — and, as it turns out, a variance of over £80 million across the most recent three-year period. Going forward, it is clearly essential for NI Water to consider recalibrating its costs to take account of fluctuations throughout the financial year, rather than relying on, as PwC has put it, "the passage of time". Furthermore, NI Water, like any other arm's-length body (ALB), must shape its services to live within the budget available. As Members will agree, that is not a unique concept in the public sector, as all other ALBs are expected to ground their budgets in reality.

Secondly, the report points to the need to work closely with suppliers to make savings. For example, if NI Water had been able to negotiate even an illustrative 5% savings in other costs, including goods and services procured through suppliers, that would have, coincidentally, almost equalled the amount of the overspend. PwC's financial analysis of the top five suppliers suggests that certain costs incurred were, arguably, optional, and NI Water could have chosen to not incur the cost. That suggests that there is room for additional cost savings, even if the saving is small and will not immediately close any budget gap that exists. That is a further example of how spend could have been controlled better.

Thirdly, the report states that the pay award could have been better managed. For example, as highlighted above, if NI Water had negotiated savings, it could have planned better and made the necessary pay award within its allocated budget.

I reassure Members that, now that I have an understanding of the issues that have led to the overspend, I am intent on working closely with NI Water to help prevent such an occurrence in future years. I am determined that the learning from this investigation will be useful for both parties, but it is essential that NI Water, like every other ALB, takes every opportunity, where it can, to live within its budget. The board needs to factor in affordability to all its decisions, alongside careful financial profiling, just as the Department and other public bodies have to do. Looking ahead, as I have said, I want to work closely with NI Water to ensure that we deliver services that the public need in line with the budget available. In recent weeks, there have been a number of opportunities for working more closely together. I welcome that and am keen to build on it in the future. I will continue to have regular discussions with the chair of NI Water to identify opportunities for improvement in the way in which the budget is managed going forward. The report also points to further work, which I will take time to consider over the weeks ahead.

In closing, I very much hope that the outcome of the report will help us to continue to move forward in partnership. These are difficult times for all of us, particularly Ministers, and we must ensure that we do the best that we can with the resources that are available.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement. It says that the Northern Ireland Water board did not base its financial decisions on the budget that it had but on the budget that it wanted. The Minister says that she will work with the board to prevent any recurrence of such an issue. We know that Northern Ireland Water cannot do the work that it has to do because it does not get the budget that it needs. We see pollution in our watercourses, and development is grinding to a halt, but the statement is silent on how the Minister will work with Northern Ireland Water to ensure that it gets the budget that it needs. Will the Minister tell us how she plans to do that?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I do not know how many times I have to outline the work that I am doing. We have repeatedly pointed to the approach that the Department has taken to the developer contributions consultation, the sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) Bill and our work with Executive colleagues. This piece of work has helped us to look at other areas for potential improvement, and I am keen to work with NI Water in doing that. If the Member or his party think that they have other solutions that we have missed, please point to them, because I have not heard of any other thing that has been identified as a solution. We are working very hard to find ways to live within the budget that I have to ensure that we can get the investment that is needed for NI Water.

It is OK to wax lyrical about all the things that I am not doing, but I have not heard what the solutions are to those issues. I know what the solution is: more money, but where do we get it from? Are the Member and his party suggesting that we introduce water charges? That is the only thing that, as far as I can see, we have not considered, and I do not intend to do that. I would be happy to hear those suggestions.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I remind the Minister to speak through the Chair, please.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the pre-brief. This process cost the Department thousands of pounds, yet it is a whitewash: it pinpoints themes that we knew would be the case before the forensic accountant even began work. Those themes can be replicated across a number of public bodies and in the spending profile of the public sector. Therefore, there is nothing new really.

In the statement, the Minister talked about discussions that were already taking place with NI Water. Will the Minister come back to the Assembly with measurable targets for how NI Water will meet the aims and recommendations of the review?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member will not be surprised that I do not agree that the review is a whitewash. It is an important piece of work that has clearly identified areas for improvement. I also think that it has helped to reinforce the challenging budgetary position that is faced not just by NI Water but by all our ALBs and Departments. It points back to the issue that the overall Executive Budget still does not meet the needs of our public services.

We all have to look at where we can make efficiencies, and the investigation has clearly identified those areas of work. As I said, I spoke to you, as Chair, and the Deputy Chair this morning ahead of making the statement. I also spoke to the chair of the board of NI Water. I am keen to continue the work to ensure that we are able to address these issues. We are now in a new financial year and working on the budget that we have at the minute, including the indicative budget that NI Water has been provided with.

I do not think that the investigation has been a waste of time. It has been a worthwhile piece of work that all ALBs and public bodies could look to to find out how they could do things differently. If we can all make small savings, those savings can accumulate and go a long way. As elected representatives, that is the duty on all of us: to ensure that we get the best value from the public money that we manage.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Minister's statement. Did NIW breach 'Managing Public Money'?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The report sets out clearly that any direction by the board of NI Water, or, indeed, of any ALB, to overspend without the prior agreement of the Department is technically a breach of 'Managing Public Money NI'. Had I not taken the decision to allocate additional money and bail out NI Water — I have to say that I did so just days before the end of the financial year and that we could have used that money elsewhere, whether mending potholes or something else that we could have done in the public service — the board would, indeed, have incurred a breach of MPMNI.

I was quick to move to ensure that that did not happen, but, given that the board had clearly indicated that it intended to instruct NI Water to overspend, there were consequences. That is why we are where we are, but the situation gives us a good platform from which, through working closely together, we can ensure that that does not happen again.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. None of it comes as a great surprise, Minister, as you will be aware. Was PwC able to quantify the savings that could have been made in the three areas recommended in the report? Given that NI Water is the biggest consumer of energy of all our public bodies, are you confident that it is doing enough to benefit from the economies of scale that could come from better collaboration with other agencies and Departments to ensure that it delivers better value for money from its energy use?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

PwC indicated how the savings could be quantified. As I said in my statement, even a 5% saving on procurement would have equated to the overspend of £1·4 million. Although that sounds like a small amount, if that saving had been made, we would have seen a different outcome and would probably not be in the position that we are in today. We can definitely look at how we can use money better to ensure that the situation does not arise again.

You asked about working with other public bodies. You asked two questions, so I hope that I have got this right. I work with everybody to ensure that we move forward and get the best outcome for all our public services. That is what I have told NI Water and what I am keen to do across the board. I intend to do that work.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. She highlighted the fact that the board did not stay within its budget because it spent what it wanted to spend rather than what it had. Considering the number of statutory functions and obligations that have to be carried out, where does assessed need come into the equation? Given the state of our waste water infrastructure, does the Minister agree that, in reality, the funding requirement could be substantially higher?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The report has clearly identified that, over the past three years, NI Water indicated a much greater figure in all opening budgets than what was needed. That figure then went down substantially. Over the past three years, the total variance between its opening budget ask and its closing budget, after it reduced it in-year, was £80 million. I have said clearly that there are a number of variables that have to be taken into account. Those variables can depend on the weather and on energy costs, but there are also controllable costs, and PwC identified how those could be managed better.

I have responsibility for doing lots of things. I could say, "I do not have the budget to do that, but I will do it anyway", but that would not be good management of my budget. We all have to live and work within our budget. That is the expectation placed on me and on ALBs. It is challenging, and I do not underestimate the challenge for one second, but, when that expectation is not met, it is important that there be consequences. That is not where any of us wants to be, which is why I want to work with NI Water to ensure that we are not in the same position again and that we work within a realistic operating plan. If and when more money becomes available, I have said that that is what I intend to do. I continually bid for in-year funding in the monitoring rounds to ensure that we can get additional investment so that NI Water can do more with its opening budget. In the next financial year, when we will hopefully have a multi-year budget, we will be in an even better position.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The exercise was definitely worthwhile. What oversight did the Department have of it?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Department ensures that its investment in NI Water is protected through a robust governance process that is underpinned by a partnership agreement that sets out all the partnership arrangements and the overall governance framework. Officials monitor NI Water's expenditure through a monthly profiling process that indicates whether its spending forecast is in line with its budget allocation. In fact, it was that oversight process that first identified NI Water's inability to live within the approved resource budget and that escalated the risk for further action to be taken. The chief executive of NI Water is required to give the Department a mid-year and end-of-year assurance statement to provide a summary of progress made against the company's annual operating plan and to highlight risks, with a particular focus on financial management.

Ultimately, though, it is the chief executive's responsibility to ensure that services are designed and delivered within the approved budget allocation. It is the appointed board's role to act as the eyes and ears of the Minister and the Department to ensure that spending plans are not implemented that are at odds with 'Managing Public Money NI' and public expenditure rules.

A robust governance framework is in place, and officials work closely with NI Water's board and senior leadership. It is clear, however, that we have more work to do, and that is what we will be doing.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for the statement. It outlines that there has been a variance in the final out-turn of £80 million across the most recent three-year period. If that has been potentially going on for several years, why is the Department only addressing the issue now? Was it ignored by former Minister O'Dowd?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

No. We are addressing the matter now because NI Water's board had directed NI Water to overspend. As I said, that would have resulted in a breach of MPMNI. That is why I instructed PwC to carry out the investigation. In the past, work was done to ensure that NI Water continued to live within its budget. The £80 million variance was between the amount that NI Water had set out that it needed to do the work that it did and the figure at the end of the year. That figure came down substantially by year-end in each of those three years, however, but, overall, the variance totalled £80 million. The opening budget that NI Water set out has significantly reduced in-year to meet the budget that it was allocated. This year, however, we saw that, had the Department not stepped in, there was potential for NI Water to overspend.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her statement. In the past week, the Fiscal Council has stated that Northern Ireland Water's funding model is neither fit for purpose nor sustainable. At the same time, human waste is going into Belfast lough because of our old infrastructure. Today, it has been laid bare that Northern Ireland Water is struggling to live within the budget that your Department allocates it to manage, treat and deliver water across Northern Ireland. Do you acknowledge that those problems will continue if we do not address the elephant in the room and fund Northern Ireland Water in a more sustainable way and in line with the Utility Regulator?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member's interpretation of the Fiscal Council's report varies slightly from mine. The report is welcome because it confirms what I and my predecessor have consistently said about alternative funding models for NI Water. The Fiscal Council stated very clearly that any alternative will lead to the introduction of water charges for households here. The report also stated that not only would it lead to water charges, but that those charges are not the best option, because, as we have seen in Britain, they do necessarily achieve what you are trying to achieve.

It is worth noting that it has been widely acknowledged that many of the alternative models are failing. Our existing funding model works, but it needs significant additional investment. Again, I ask the Member to tell me whether I have missed something, or whether there is another solution that does not include domestic water charges. If there is, I am willing to hear about it, because I have not been presented with any alternative other than the options that lead to water charges.

It is important to go back to the point on water charges because of what that would mean for household budgets. At Question Time yesterday, I mentioned that a figure of around £590 per household was quoted in the report. That may seem insignificant to many in the Chamber, but it is very significant for many households. If you add that on to the average household rate of £1,180 per annum, you are talking about an average annual bill of approximately £1,800. That is quite a lot of money for households that are already struggling. It also means that people will have to make choices about where and how they spend their money. Just last week, the Consumer Council reported that food costs account for almost a quarter of households' basic spending.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be introducing water charges that will add a financial burden on households. I am more than willing to look at alternatives that have real benefits, but I have yet to see them. The Fiscal Council's report has clearly stated that the only alternative to the existing model will lead to the introduction of domestic water charges. I keep saying this: if there are other alternatives that we have missed, I am happy to look at them.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her statement and the report. How does this report sit alongside the ongoing whistle-blowing report?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As that investigation is ongoing, it is important to let it take its course. I want to make sure that we do not conflate the two. However, both are extremely important, and we will look at the outcome of that investigation once it has been finalised. It is important to say that this report was not related to the whistle-blowing investigation. It would be unfair to suggest that they are related when they are not. The whistle-blowing report looks into allegations of fraud in the contract management processes and the quality of work undertaken by suppliers, which obviously gives rise to concerns. This report, however, shows clearly that the board's actions led to a potential breach of MPMNI. There were opportunities for things to be done to control costs, and we need to look at that and base financial decisions on a budget that actually exists as opposed to a larger amount that, a body thinks, it should have.

Alongside that, it is important to say that NI Water has appointed an independent electrical engineer to provide a technical opinion of the quality of suppliers' work. That will be completed in July. Given those two serious issues, I am determined that the learning from this investigation and anything that comes out of the further work on the whistle-blowing case can only serve NI Water in bringing forward improvements to its processes and ensuring that it takes every opportunity that it can to live within its budget. It is imperative that the board continue to drive forward that required behavioural change in order to ensure that affordability is factored into all decisions, just as the Department has to do.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement today. 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' sets out guidance on the proper handling of public money. As you set out in your statement, Minister, any direction by the board of Northern Ireland Water to overspend without prior agreement is technically a breach. It is clear from your previous statement that the board had indicated that it was going to do that and that, only for your decision to step in, there would have been a breach. However, that does not take away from the fact that a board of a significant arm's-length body in Northern Ireland has put on record its clear intent to undermine the position of 'Managing Public Money' and to undermine the Minister's position. Minister, have you made it clear to the board of Northern Ireland Water that that is completely unacceptable, and have there been any consequences or reprimands? How can we be sure that that will not be the position again next year?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

When I first gave a statement to the Assembly to make Members aware that I was taking those steps, I made it clear that they were a consequence of that instruction to overspend. Members will be aware that, if the Executive were to overspend their Budget, there would be serious consequences, which are outlined by the British Government. We all have a responsibility to live within our budgets, and we all strive to do so. I do not want to underestimate the challenges. I hope that the report will be constructive and not overly critical, but there is definitely room for improvement, and this is something that we can overcome.

With regard to consequences and reprimand, the first step that we took to deal with that instruction to overspend was to have an investigation. We are where we are now. We have a pathway forward. I will continue to work with NI Water, both the board and the senior leadership team, to find that way forward and ensure that we are not in this position again. If that does not change, I will have to consider the next steps. We are in a good position now, and people clearly know the areas where work is required. I am happy to continue that work.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

What would the Minister say to those who suggest that the report merely provides a distraction from her Department's ongoing failures to provide the necessary capital funding to bring Northern Ireland Water treatment works up to compliance standards?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is absolutely not a distraction. It shows that I am very committed to ensuring that I do everything that is within my power to get the money that is needed and to get the best value for public money.

I am incredulous that the Member has said that I will not provide the capital funding required. I am sure that his colleague the Minister, the Health Department and the trusts could say a similar thing about what money can be provided for capital. We are all working with very challenging budgets. NI Water got half a billion pounds last year. That is a huge amount of money, and I recognise that it has still fallen significantly short of what is needed. However, that work will take time. We have to work together and continue to move forward. If we could get a bigger Executive Budget and I could get a bigger allocation out of that, we could achieve so much more. I continue to work to ensure that the budget that we have is spent properly and that we make the progress that is needed.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, your statement, under "Payments to Supplier", states:

"if NI Water had been able to negotiate ... costs incurred were, arguably, optional, and NI Water could have chosen to not incur the cost."

We hear, "They need more money, they need more money, they need more money". Are you content that the money that it gets is being wisely spent and managed properly?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That is the point of the report. Whilst I do not think that there are huge gaps, there are areas for improvement, and the Member has outlined one of those, in particular, on negotiating contracts and ensuring that it is getting the best price for the work that is required. NI Water can take that forward in working towards ensuring that we are not in this position again. The whole point of the report was to ensure that we can stand over the fact that the budget that is allocated is being spent properly. Those are not insurmountable asks: they are things that can be achieved, and I will work with NI Water going forward to ensure that that is done.

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

Minister, I wish that I could thank you for your statement, but I cannot, because it is a waste of the Assembly's time. It is an utter waste. I do not know which detective you got to do the forensic exercise — whether it was Columbo or perhaps Inspector Clouseau. Having read the statement, I think that it demonstrates, Minister, that you want an alibi for your and your Executive's failure to deliver on NI Water. Minister, I accept that you do not want water charges — I do not want it, and the Opposition do not want it — but, please, what is your plan to fund Northern Ireland Water? Take responsibility: tell us how you will fund Northern Ireland Water.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Nothing surprises me any more in the Chamber. I do not know how many times I have to outline what my approach has been. You obviously do not think that it is working. It is important to identify that this is a resource budget, not capital, so that is what the investigation was looking at; that is where the overspend was. If the Member knows where there is money hiding, tell me. I will find it.

[Interruption.]

Absolutely, but I am exploring all those options.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Through the Chair, please.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Apologies, a Cheann Comhairle

[Translation: Mr Speaker.]

We hear all these proposals, but I have yet to hear the Opposition's alternative.

[Interruption.]

I have presented

[Interruption.]

I have presented what my approach is. I have worked —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

[Inaudible.]

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Apologies, Mr Speaker. I do not know how many times I have said in here what the Department is doing. We have the three-pronged approach. We have done the investigation to ensure that the budget is being spent appropriately. We have found areas where improvements can be made, and we are working towards that. If the Member's colleagues in Westminster can work to get us more money in the Executive Budget, that would also be very welcome. However, until such time as the budget becomes available, unfortunately, I have to do what I can with the existing budget.

[Interruption.]

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I agree with the Minister that it is disappointing that the board was not able to manage the budget, but I also agree with the Minister in her statement when she says that the Department needs to carefully profile its funding. Given that, can the Minister tell the House how much was profiled for the report and how much it cost?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That figure is commercially sensitive, particularly given the time frame of the investigation, so it is not a number that I can disclose. I am sure that the Member will appreciate that.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

A variance of over £80 million in the most recent three years is quite considerable, but we cannot avoid the fact that an arm's-length body is accountable to its sponsoring Department for performance and use of resource. Minister, there is a worrying acceptance that the Department for Infrastructure does not have a grip on managing public money. What confidence can the House and the taxpayer of Northern Ireland have that the Minister has a grip on a Department that appears to be growing into turbulence?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That is the point of the report: to ensure that we have a grip on what is happening and how money is spent. When the report is published, I am sure, the Member will go through it in great detail to see the level of detail that PwC has gone into as part of that work. It will be food for thought for everyone about how important it is to manage money very tightly, given the budgetary constraints that we all face. I can give the House an absolute assurance that it can have confidence in my Department and me. That was the whole purpose of the exercise. A £1·4 million overspend may not seem much to many people, but I take it very seriously.

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

Minister, today, everyone in NI Water must be breathing a huge sigh of relief because you have waded in to straighten them out, bail them out and admonish their board and leadership. The statement is a bizarre distraction and diversion from the real issues at hand in NI Water, which relate to water and waste water. When it comes to NI Water's performance and funding model or underperformance and underfunding model, as you have outlined, where does the buck stop?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am not sure where that question is directed. I suppose that I will just say this: that is the point of the report — to ensure that money in the budget is being spent appropriately. I do not know how many more times I need to say that. We can make all the accusations of distractions. Are Members suggesting that I just let that fly and that, if an ALB indicates that it will overspend its budget, I should ignore that? Absolutely not. I take that very seriously. That is why I instructed PwC to do the report.

If the findings had come the other way and there was nothing to see, that would also have been positive, because it would have reinforced the position that NI Water has been making. This is showing areas of improvement, but it is not an indictment of NI Water. It is important that we all look at our budgets and see where we can make efficiencies. That is what has come out of it.

The Member and his party would never have been happy, regardless of what the outcome was. The reality is that the budget that we have been allocated is not enough to do what is needed. However, the budget that we have must be spent appropriately so that we can ensure that all the people whom we represent get the best value for their money.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister. Members may take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

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

Executive Committee Business

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill [NIA Bill 15/22-27] be agreed.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Second Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill has been moved. In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits on the debate. I call junior Minister Cameron to open the debate on the Bill.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I speak for junior Minister Reilly and me when I say that we feel honoured to move the Second Stage of this important legislation on behalf of the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Executive. It is our view that it is one of the most significant Bills to be introduced in this Assembly mandate. It will establish a statutory inquiry for those affected by mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses and the associated redress scheme. It is a large, complex and sensitive piece of legislation.

Last Monday morning, the First Minister, deputy First Minister, junior Minister Reilly and I met victims and survivors just before the Bill was introduced in the House. I wish to be as forthright with Members today as Ministers were in our meeting with the victims and survivors. It was important to us to be upfront and acknowledge at the outset the inevitability that the Bill will not and cannot be all things to all people. At our meeting with victims and survivors last week and in the days since, it was clear that some people feel hurt, disappointed and let down by some parts of the Bill. We need to acknowledge, reflect on and own that. We have also received positive feedback from some victims and survivors, and we agree that there is a lot to welcome in the Bill and in the wider process, which I will expand on later.

To do this important legislation justice, we believe that it is important to outline why it matters so much, how we have got here and what the legislation will do. I appreciate that these practices impact on the lives of many, including some in the House, and I want to do them and the House justice. We believe that what we have in front of us closely aligns with the truth recovery design panel's recommendations, which were developed in collaboration with the wishes of victims and survivors. That required the delivery of a unique and groundbreaking set of aspirations. For example, it required a two-stage financial redress process that would ensure that victims and survivors would not have to wait for years for the completion of an inquiry before some financial redress could be progressed. The Bill will do that.

A two-stage investigative process has been recommended to enable the victims and survivors who would prefer to avoid participating in what can often be an intimidating inquiry process to have the opportunity instead to provide their testimony in a more supported and informal setting — a safe forum where victims and survivors can have personal testimonies recognised and recorded. That valuable first stage of the investigation — the independent panel — spearheaded by a range of professionals and persons with lived experience, has been able to carry out its analysis of the evidence and will be able to present its findings to inform the statutory inquiry. It has also allowed the difficult and time-consuming but essential, process of securing access to institutional and state records. That novel approach should assist the statutory inquiry to get off to a running start, which will, in turn, help to reduce the overall time and cost of the entire investigation.

The truth recovery design panel asked that we learn from other truth processes to ensure that victims and survivors would be properly supported throughout the process. To that end, we made sure that specialised support services were put in place as soon as possible. The bespoke portfolio of support services was co-designed with victims and survivors and has been in place since 2022.

For a number of reasons, the Bill aims to put in place the first of two financial redress schemes. The scheme aims to be as simple and inclusive as possible, using the best elements from international examples. We carefully considered comparable inquiries in other places and did our best to develop something that seeks to learn lessons to avoid some of the well-rehearsed pitfalls. We paid close attention to the consultation responses and, as a result, made a series of important and worthwhile changes to the proposed policy. Those changes include simplifying the redress eligibility processes; extending the duration of the redress scheme; allowing separate, independent posthumous claims; and, perhaps most important, having the ability to establish a victim and survivors' advisory panel, which, if established, will provide a voice for victims and survivors at the centre of the investigation. All of those changes have helped us deliver what, we believe, is the measured and balanced Bill that is before the House. It is a welcome Bill as, ultimately, its outworkings will help shine a long-overdue light on this dark period of our past and, crucially, will ensure that many victims and survivors will receive some financial redress for the shame and stigma that they have endured and, in some cases, continue to endure to this day.

It is important for us to recognise those who have done so much to help us reach this important stage of confronting the difficult truths of our collective past. To that end, we take the opportunity to thank the victims and survivors. The work was pioneered by those involved with the Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice group. It is thanks to that strong, courageous and determined group of women, who, for more than a decade, have continued to work tirelessly and to lobby for justice, that we are where we are today. We also thank all of those involved with the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum. They represent an important range of voices and have helped to progress the five core recommendations in the design panel report.

As we are all too aware, developing and progressing legislation can feel like a long and bureaucratic process. While that is necessary and important, it sometimes creates too much distance between what it seeks to achieve and those who are most affected — those who are at the heart of the matter. For that reason, I would like to take a moment to bring a human face to all of this. I will paint a picture to remind the House of the suffering experienced by so many and, importantly, of why we are gathered here today.

Imagine, if you will, a vulnerable young woman or girl. Oftentimes, she is already a victim herself. Now, discovering that she is pregnant, she is even more vulnerable. Already filled with uncertainty and carrying the weight of stigma, blame and shame imposed by those around her, she is taken unceremoniously and hidden far from home, with little explanation or real understanding of what is happening. Far from being held close and feeling supported, she is now fearful and alone in a cold and alien place that most definitely does not feel like home. Without contemporaneous awareness of the unspoken power structures that were so firmly established in society, so many young women and girls were blamed and made to pay. They were hidden away behind closed doors and had their dignity and agency removed. Unbeknownst to that young woman or girl, she would soon be coerced into relinquishing her child to adoption. We have heard testimony after testimony of covert and overt pressure being applied and of manipulation, even threats, being used until those mothers felt as though they had no choice but to agree to surrender their baby to adoption. The unimaginable sense of trauma and loss is hard to fathom.

Of course, a different sense of loss, although just as profound, will be felt by those adopted children, who are now adults and who, if they were ever told the truth, could have spent years, maybe a lifetime, wondering why or thinking about how different things could have been. That sadness is bound up in ancestral loss: in many ways, it is a lifetime of loss. So many have suffered in so many ways. We want to remember and honour all of them.

We recognise the depth of feeling expressed by some about their loved ones not appearing to be included in the truth recovery process or the Bill, but that is far from the truth. It is important to state that redress takes many forms, not just financial: examples of what we see as redress include information retrieval; therapeutic and bespoke support services; memorialisation; and acknowledgement and apology. Speaking directly to family members advocating on behalf of their deceased loved ones, I say this: they and you are part of this process. Their and your experiences will not be lost.

We want to hear the testimonies of the women and girls and their now-adult children who suffered due to the shame and stigma imposed by this society throughout the 100-year period that the investigation will examine. The collected testimonies of the victims and survivors who come forward need to be carefully recorded. Equally welcome and important are the testimonies of the family members who are, sadly, no longer with us. Every voice will help us to understand better what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. Every record will help to illuminate and form an important part of the tapestry of that shameful part of our past. That past needs to be woven together to help us to dutifully and respectfully acknowledge all of those who suffered at our collective hands. When I say "our", I mean us as individuals, as a society, as members of churches and as state agencies that permitted that to happen. The findings of the investigation and the repository of information that emanates from it will be central to the truth recovery process. It can then be held for ever in memorialisation and posterity for future generations to know about and remember the suffering of our sisters and their children.

Before delving into the Bill, it is important to set out the developments that have led us to where we are today. Members will recall that the campaign to establish an inquiry into those affected by historical institutional abuse (HIA) followed damning findings in the institutional abuse inquiry in the Republic of Ireland. Within months, thousands had signed a petition that was delivered to the Assembly in late 2009, calling for a similar assessment of the scale of child abuse in Northern Ireland. The then Executive agreed to set up a public inquiry in 2011, and, the following year, the terms of reference were announced by the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

On the same date, retired High Court judge Sir Anthony Hart was appointed to chair the inquiry.

MLAs subsequently passed legislation to establish an inquiry to determine whether there were systemic failings by the state or institutions in their duties towards children under the age of 18. Crucially, however, the remit did not include the adult victims and survivors of Magdalene laundries. Given the age limitation, it also did not include the women in mother-and-baby institutions and therefore their children, who are now adults.

At that time, Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice launched a campaign to highlight the need for a separate inquiry. Since then, significant work has been carried out, and it deserves to be accredited. In 2018, on behalf of the Executive, the Minister of Health commissioned a team to consider evidence and to research the operation of mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries.

In January 2021, following the publication of research jointly conducted by Queen's University and Ulster University, the Executive agreed to undertake an independent investigation of the institutions. Although the research revealed some of the horrendous experiences of women and girls and their children who were admitted to institutions over many decades up until the late 1990s, it also left many unanswered questions.

In March 2021, the Health Minister took the lead and established a truth recovery design panel, which was tasked with developing options for an independent investigation of mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. Just seven months later, in October 2021, the truth recovery design panel published its findings in a report that shone a light on the shameful circumstances that occurred in the past and that persist, not least through their long-term impact, and identified the need for a transitional justice approach to remedy such wrongdoings. The panel recommended an integrated truth investigation of issues in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. In addition, it identified the need to examine their pathways and practices, as it was those practices that led to women and girls moving into and out of the institutions. It also identified a number of related institutions, such as baby homes and private nursing homes and cross-border and international transfers of children and women.

In summary, the research lifted the veil on the hidden experiences of women and girls and their children, who are now adults. Their experiences were affected by decisions taken by the state, by the Churches, by others and by society in general over many decades up until the 1990s. Testimonies collected as part of the research have been built on and will be enriched by the first stage of the investigation by the independent panel that was established in April 2023.

The Executive agreed the report's implementation in November 2021. Since then, the Executive Office's truth recovery programme has engaged with victims and survivors to implement the report's five key recommendations. As I have already said, the truth recovery design panel's proposals were groundbreaking and novel. Importantly, they identified the need to recognise and support victims and survivors from the start of the process.

One of the key recommendations was to establish a statutory inquiry and redress service, and bespoke primary legislation was required to put both in place, which brings us to the Bill before us today. The Bill is the result of much work over the past couple of years, and we hope that it will achieve the implementation of many of the ambitious recommendations made by the truth recovery design panel.

Before I explain the Bill's key elements, it would be remiss of me to neglect to mention a few of the other key recommendations that have been implemented, as they will support the inquiry's work and hopefully improve the lives of those affected to a greater or lesser extent or at least make victims and survivors' engagement with the inquiry that bit easier. In addition, we have worked with our partners in the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), WAVE Trauma Centre and Adopt NI to establish specialised, bespoke and co-designed support services for those affected. Those services have supported approximately 400 victims and survivors to date.

As I mentioned, the Department also established an independent panel in April 2023 to initiate the first stage of the investigation, and it is due to report at the end of the year.

The 10-person independent panel, which includes victim and survivor representatives, has received positive feedback for the meaningful way in which victims and survivors have been able to provide oral testimony in an environment that is more supportive and less inquisitorial than that of a statutory inquiry.

Another key area of work, which will hopefully pay dividends for those who engage with the upcoming inquiry, has involved the Preservation of Documents (Historical Institutions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. That has helped us to identify over 4,500 private records and to digitise many of them. That was done in collaboration with the institutions, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) and the independent panel.

The Department of Health, adoption agencies and some members of the consultation forum worked collaboratively to improve adoption practice guidance. Since its implementation, the feedback from many victims and survivors has been that significant progress has been made, which, in turn, has reduced the difficulties that were experienced. We know, however, that much more work remains to be done in that area. I could talk for much longer about achievements to date, but I know that the House is keen that I outline the key elements of the Bill, and I hope that doing so will help to inform the debate.

I will outline some key elements of the Bill. The Bill comprises 47 clauses, four schedules and three Parts. The first Part deals with establishing the inquiry, the second with the initial redress scheme and the third with more general matters. The first 29 clauses relate to the inquiry, and many are similar to those in the Inquiries Act 2005. There are five clauses that are more specific to this inquiry, namely clauses 1 to 4 and clause 10.

Clause 1 outlines the time period that is to be covered — 1922 to 1995 — but, importantly, has the flexibility to cover the effects up to today.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 establish a framework for the inquiry and propose key things that must be in the inquiry's terms of reference. The clauses outline a separate process for finalising the terms of reference, which will be informed through consultation with the inquiry's chair, and consideration of the findings and recommendations of the independent panel, which are due to be received later this year.

The Bill provides for a human rights-centred investigation and process for all participants, which is to be based on the PANEL principles: participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and legality. To support those important principles, clause 10 provides the chair of the inquiry with the power to create a victim/survivor advisory panel. As I said, that will provide a voice for victims and survivors at the centre of the investigation.

I wish to highlight another important power. Clause 16 will give the inquiry the power to compel evidence. The absence of such a power would, of course, frustrate the work of the inquiry.

It is important to note that the inquiry is designed to be inquisitorial, as opposed to adversarial. In practice, that means that victims and survivors and others will not be subject to cross-examination. It should be emphasised that the PSNI's criminal investigation remains open and that the inquiry will, of course, have important disclosure protocols with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). The inquiry cannot, however, determine civil or criminal liability. Instead, it will seek to find out whether there have been systemic failings in relation to those statutory, non-statutory and other bodies or persons that were involved in the pathways and practices of those women and girls, and their now-adult children, into and out of the institutions and places to which the evidence points. Ultimately, the inquiry's examination of the facts and testimonies that are provided to it will seek to establish what happened, why it happened and who was responsible.

I turn to the second Part of the Bill. At its core, the first redress scheme is designed to provide redress, on a common basis and in a simple way, to a large number of people who were admitted to named institutions from 1922 to 1995. That is much harder to achieve than it may appear to be on the face of it and requires us to balance a large number of factors. This Part aims to do a few fundamental things. Clause 30 establishes an independent body to administer the redress payments. The other key element is clause 31, which provides for a standardised payment to the women and girls and the now-adult children who were born to them while they were admitted to any of the listed institutions between 1922 to 1995. That is an acknowledgement payment that has been designed to provide for those whose lives were impacted on by a system of institutions that were established for women and girls, admittance to which had gender-specific and undeserved shame and stigma attached.

That is an admission-based payment as opposed to a harm-based scheme.

At this juncture, it is important to highlight the fact that a harm-based scheme will follow in due course in separate legislation. It is also important to explain a little of the genesis of the payment. After much consideration, particularly in light of the length of time that victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries have waited to get to this point and especially given the age profile of many of the birth mothers, the design panel made its recommendation in an attempt to ensure that those women would not have to wait another period of many years until the inquiry is completed to receive financial redress.

The proposed scheme will provide a £10,000 standardised payment for approximately 4,500 applicants, including the women and girls and their now-adult children who were born to them while they were admitted to a named, listed institution. It will also provide for approximately over 2,000 posthumous claims and a payment of £2,000 for each eligible relative of the deceased individual. It was essential to us that the payments not impact on anyone's social security payments, take into account other payments, require a person to sign a waiver or be subject to taxation. The Bill achieves that aim.

Clause 31 also deals with proposals for a posthumous payment. We acknowledge that that is arguably the most difficult and sensitive part of the Bill, and we appreciate that some victims and survivors wanted us to go back to 1922 for the posthumous payment date. For an admission-based scheme, that would be without precedent and would inevitably present us with separate, difficult decisions in other parts of the scheme.

As Members will know, posthumous payments that are available in redress schemes are ordinarily tied to a date on which a reasonable expectation was created that a redress scheme would become available, such as the date of a formal state apology or another date of state significance. In contrast, as Members will also be aware, the posthumous date for the historical institutional abuse (HIA) redress scheme was 1953. Unlike the proposed standardised payment scheme, which is an admission-based scheme, the HIA redress payment was harm-based. The date of 1953 was chosen because that was when state inspection records show that failings were formally recorded.

In the case of the proposed admission-based standardised payment that is provided for in the Bill, which, unlike the HIA scheme, does not require a person to provide a statement of evidence of harm, a suitable date on which to land was less obvious. The consultation provided an example of the posthumous date of 15 November 2021, which was when the then deputy First Minister made a statement to the Assembly to mark the Executive's agreement to the recommendations of the truth recovery design panel. Following the consultation process, the Executive ultimately chose the date on which the inquiry into the institutions was announced — 29 September 2011 — when, arguably, the expectation of victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries that they might receive a redress payment could be regarded as having been created.

The Bill will also provide for all eligible family members of the deceased to receive payment of £2,000 each for an individual posthumous claim. That was another difficult area on which to arrive at a conclusion, as is illuminated by the wide and opposing consultation responses. As Members will appreciate, that area is fraught with sensitivity and privacy concerns. We hope that, with our effort to avoid causing any potentially devastating unintended consequences, clause 31 achieves a careful solution to that complex issue. To clarify that provision, eligible family members are the surviving spouse or partner and all surviving children, including a person who was adopted into another family.

I hope that I have outlined the key elements and the purpose of the Bill to Members' satisfaction. Before concluding, I know that Members will be interested in a summary of the financial effects of the Bill. Given that it provides for a demand-led scheme with limited means of control, significant uncertainty about the cost is inevitable. As a result, that cost could be much higher than the estimate, or it could be lower. Based on the Bill as introduced, the main cost scenario is £80 million, which can be broken down into three parts. Part 1 relates to the public inquiry and is estimated at £14 million. Part 2 is estimated at £58 million and relates to the initial financial redress payments. Part 3 relates to the redress service and is estimated to cost £8 million.

As I said at the outset, the Bill is large, technical, complex and sensitive. We thank the Committee and especially the Chair and the Deputy Chair for their constructive engagement. We look forward to supporting the Committee's important work. Indeed, we express our appreciation to Ministers and Members for their ongoing interest in and support for the work of the truth recovery programme and the Bill in particular. Members will, no doubt, have views on the Bill, and, of course, we will listen carefully. I commend the Bill to the House.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I will speak on behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office at the Second Stage of this deeply significant and long-awaited Bill.

The introduction of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill was a huge milestone for victims and survivors. The purpose of the Bill is to set up a statutory public inquiry to establish the facts about those institutions between 1922 and 1995. The Bill will further include provision for the Executive Office to establish a redress service to administer a statutory financial redress scheme. The Committee also recognises the importance of the legislation in responding to the recommendations of the truth recovery design panel report that was published in 2021. I thank the panel for its work on that important topic. The institutions should have offered care and protection, but, instead, they became sites of stigma, forced separation and profound trauma. Victims and survivors have waited for far too long for the truth to be acknowledged.

The Bill is scheduled to reach Committee Stage tomorrow, and Committee members are committed to undertaking thorough scrutiny to ensure that it delivers meaningful outcomes for all those who are affected. The Committee will robustly seek views on the Bill from all those whose knowledge can shape it. In particular, we will engage widely and sensitively to ensure that all voices are heard. Having heard evidence in Committee from mothers and adoptees over the past few months, we are acutely aware of not only the pain that they experienced but the value of the input that they will bring. It is so important that we get it right. It is now our collective duty to ensure that their voices are heard and considered when it comes to how the inquiry will work and the matter of appropriate redress.

The Committee was briefed on the Bill's provisions by the Department at its meeting on 18 June, following the introduction of the Bill on 16 June. Members took the opportunity to raise a number of concerns, particularly in relation to access to public records, formal engagement with religious orders and the posthumous eligibility date of 29 September 2011. The Committee looks forward to working with the Department on those matters, and, on behalf of the Committee, I support the Bill at Second Stage. I look forward to working constructively with other Members, the Department and, most importantly, the victims and survivors to ensure the thorough scrutiny of the Bill.

I will now make some points in my capacity as an individual MLA. Today has been a long time coming. I acknowledge the relentless efforts of many campaigners to get us to this point. In 2016, I met some of those campaigners when they came to my office. During that three-hour meeting, I heard from Oonagh McAleer, Mechelle Dillon and Eunan Duffy. Their lives have all been so shaped by those institutions. It was a sad, horrifying and frustrating meeting. Their stories will never leave me, but neither will the statement that Eunan made when he was leaving. He said that they had been banging on the doors of politicians for years and were "drowning in tea and sympathy". They wanted and needed justice, accountability and acknowledgement; they still do. Hopefully, the Bill will be the first step in delivering that for them. I thank every person who has shared their experiences with me in the nine years since then. I include in that, for example, Adele Johnstone and those who may not have been in a mother-and-baby institution but experienced Magdalene laundries or workhouses. Their voices are also very important as we move forward.

Since that time, a series of processes has been deemed necessary by the Executive Office before we got here today. They include the commissioned research, which cost £206,000; the truth recovery design panel, which cost £266,000; the truth recovery independent panel, which has, to date, incurred costs of over £1 million. I wanted to read those figures into the record as I move forward with my remarks to highlight that, of that money, £1·5 million, not very much of it has gone to the victims of the institutions.

I am concerned about the double standards of the Executive Office when it came to drafting the Bill, and I will address those first. Clause 31(5)(b) covers the eligibility of posthumous claims if the deceased person died on or after 29 September 2011. Last week, in Committee, I asked about that date and was advised that it is the date of the announcement of the public inquiry into historical institutional abuse. That makes little sense and does not seem fair to the victims who suffered in one of the institutions and have since passed away.

I want to read into the record a letter that MLAs received overnight from Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice on behalf of an adult adoptee. The letter includes a photograph of a woman called Brenda, and it reads:

"This is Brenda. Brenda was a birth mother — my mother. She was failed in life and is now going to be failed in death, like so many other mothers and babies, you the Government say that she will not receive justice nor recognition because she died before 29 September 2011. Over 14,000 women and girls entered these institutions. What % of these individuals are being denied? We have not campaigned for all these years to leave anyone behind: they were forgotten during the HIA, cannot be forgotten again! The First and deputy First Minister said they wanted to take the shame and stigma away, but, with this result, they may as well have handed all the shame and stigma back again. No one's life should be held to a time frame. This is Brenda. Remember her. Remember them all."

I put on record therefore that I will seek to have that date amended, either through a Committee amendment or an individual one.

Linked to that is the amount that the Bill has allocated for the posthumous payment, found at clause 31(9)(b), where it states that the payment is to be £2,000 if the person is eligible under subsection (5); in other words, deceased. Again, linked to that is the issue of intergenerational trauma. A mother may have died before that date, however, the long-term impact of the shame, stigma and grief that they lived with in their adult life will live on through their now adult children. The Executive Office, on page 4 of its 'Strategy for Victims and Survivors of the Troubles/Conflict 2024-2034', described intergenerational trauma as the:

"impact of a traumatic experience, not only on one generation, but on subsequent generations after the event."

Therefore, it seems that the Executive Office has a blind spot to how intergenerational trauma will have impacted on those mothers and their children. We need to reflect on that when setting the posthumous payments for the victims of the institutions.

It should also be noted that, under the historical institutional abuse redress scheme, the eligibility date for posthumous payments was from 28 April 1953. It is my opinion that a similar date should be set for mother-and-baby institutions. Junior Minister Cameron has just highlighted how the date in the historical institutional abuse redress scheme was arrived at, and she said that the records from that time show that there were failings in inspections. That is the whole point. Those women went into those institutions and were shut away. Nobody was looking out for them, so, for decades, they were subject to very similar abuse and trauma. We cannot say that the women who went through this, because they died after a certain date, did not experience trauma and abuse similar to that which children in those institutions did. The point is that, as that lady, in her letter about her mother, Brenda, said, we cannot put a time frame on the fact that those women, who were subjected to that abuse, should be acknowledged in the redress scheme.

I will move on. I put on record my concern that the redress scheme does not seem to give any recognition to those babies and children who died early due to the harsh conditions under which they entered the world. We know from the QUB/Ulster University research that there were higher levels of infant mortality in those institutions, and while they admit in the 2021 report that the figure varied by institution and got less severe as time passed, there is evidence, from statistics and from the stories of women who gave birth, that they experienced very harsh birth conditions. They were not afforded the same support as women who were married, whether in the institutions or a nearby hospital. As such, I want to see what happened to those babies and children. Maybe they lived for only a day or two, but they should be acknowledged in what is an acknowledgement scheme.

I will turn to the £10,000 standardised payment as found at clause 31(9)(a). When it comes to historical institutional abuse, we know that, under that redress scheme, the standardised payment was £10,000, but that was from a Bill that received Royal Assent in 2019. If you take 2019 for your figure, in today's money, £10,000 would be worth £12,771, or alternatively, if you take this figure for the redress scheme, which opened in 2020, £10,000 would now be worth approximately £12,545. I note, of course, that the initial payment that was proposed for HIA was £7,500, and, through collective political action, that was raised to £10,000. I hope that the Committee and those in this Chamber can come together to raise that figure, through an amendment, to one that is linked to inflation.

I want to raise another couple of issues with the redress scheme. Clause 32(2), which is about the time limit for applications for a payment, states that the time for payment may, by regulations, be extended from three years to a maximum of five years. That is a mistake. What happens if, God forbid, we have another pandemic? What happens if communication and promotion of the scheme is slow to permeate beyond these shores and those people who are eligible who live in, for example, Australia or Canada do not hear about the scheme for a couple of years? It is unnecessary to specify the maximum time for the extension of the scheme, considering that it is purported that these provisions will go into regulations.

I have a final point. On the funding, which is found in one of the schedules, the Committee has been very disappointed at the slow pace with which the institutions have come forward with contributions — so-called voluntary contributions — to the historical institutional abuse redress scheme. We — certainly my colleague Stewart Dickson and I — will focus on how we can amend the Bill to put in a requirement for the institutions to contribute to the redress scheme. They have to be held to account for the pain and suffering that they have inflicted.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I want to highlight the fact that some of these institutions are global institutions and that these abuses have occurred in other countries around the world, so we need to highlight to them the fact that they have recourse and the means to make the payment to help these people here. Too often, especially when it comes to the Churches, it is left on the shoulders of parishioners, for example, so it is really important to note, from the Government, that some of these are global institutions and they should be participating and helping where they can.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you. I will go further and read into the record that the Committee has been very frustrated that, when we have asked the institutions to come before Committee, they have refused and have hidden under the cloth that they are all-island and that their headquarters are in Dublin. We need to find a way, through the Bill, to hold them to account.

I will now turn to the inquiry itself. Under the "relevant persons" definition found at clause 5, we need to ensure that the following persons are included and appear in the Bill: those who entered mother-and-baby institutions having been raped and impregnated while residing in a workhouse. They should have been there and should have been cared for, yet they were groomed and then led a further traumatised life. Again, we need to find a way to ensure that those "relevant persons" also include the babies and children who died whilst staying in one of the institutions. On that point, the inclusion in clause 1(2) of the words "Truth Recovery" before "Public Inquiry" is superfluous. In closed session, the Committee took evidence from now adult women who had been placed in the Whiteabbey Girls Training School. They told us that they did not come forward during the Historical Institutional Abuse inquiry because they did not feel that it was relevant to them. What we need with this public inquiry is plain English. "Truth Recovery Public Inquiry" could fill a newspaper headline. We need to make sure that this speaks directly to people, so those words should be removed.

Those are the main issues that I wanted to raise at Second Stage. We can work with departmental officials and the Examiner of Statutory Rules on some of the technical issues in due course. I encourage anyone and everyone to get in touch with me and/or the Committee with any concerns about or unmet aspirations in the Bill.

I end where I began by paying tribute to the women and adult adoptees who have campaigned for far too long to get us to this point. The inquiry and redress scheme must deliver for them, and I commit to doing everything in my power as a member of the Committee for the Executive Office and as an Alliance Party MLA to shape the Bill to make sure that we do not let them down again.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am glad to see this Bill before the Assembly. It is long overdue, and it is owed to the women, girls and children who were forced to endure decades of silence, shame and stigma in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. The state failed them; we failed them.

The Bill presents a long-awaited beginning, a first step towards recognition, acknowledgement and truth. We acknowledge one of the greatest scandals in Ireland's history: the removal of children from their mothers, driven by deeply misogynistic values and a punitive, judgemental system. Women and their babies were treated cruelly. Indeed, many were humiliated, and some were excommunicated from the altars of their churches across almost every parish in Ireland. Of course, many young women found that they were also estranged from their families.

As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I have heard many heartbreaking testimonies from mothers and adoptees who found themselves placed in the mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. Today, I welcome the progress in having the Bill before the House. I thank the many women of Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice, who have had to fight so hard for this inquiry and redress, for their powerful tenacity.

The Committee is clear about the significance of the legislation, especially in responding to the recommendations made by the truth recovery design panel in 2021. I place on record my thanks to the panel for its dedicated work on this vital issue.

The Bill is due to enter Committee Stage tomorrow, and I am committed to carrying out rigorous scrutiny to ensure that the final legislation meets the needs of all those affected and delivers meaningful, survivor-centred outcomes. At this early stage, however, I cannot ignore the serious concerns raised by the current Bill. I am deeply disappointed that the religious institutions that ran many of those homes and were responsible for systematic abuse and neglect are not being compelled to contribute financially to this redress. Can we stand here and truly say that the state alone should carry the entire financial burden? Those institutions caused immense pain and lifelong trauma. They cannot be permitted to remain silent and unaccountable. It is not enough for those institutions to express sorrow in vague terms.

They must engage with the process fully: morally, financially and publicly. True accountability cannot be optional. Yes, the state must acknowledge its role, but so must the religious bodies that profited from the control and suffering of women and children.

I am concerned about how the Bill addresses adoptees who were born to women in the institutions. While they are eligible for a redress payment, access to their personal records and birth history and information about their identity are not legislated for in the Bill. Yes, the Bill references the investigation of adoption and fostering arrangements, but that is not the same as guaranteeing adoptees the right to know who they are. Too many adopted people still live with gaps in their story. That is not redress. Redress without full truth is not justice. It is not enough.

The Bill imposes a cut-off date of 29 July 2011 for families to make posthumous claims. I can describe that date only as unjust and arbitrary. It excludes countless families whose loved ones died just before it, often having dealt with a lifetime of trauma. It is not just a technicality but an exclusion that inflicts further harm. No one should be denied justice because of the date on which they died. The cut-off date must be reviewed and revised.

The Bill offers a flat redress payment of £10,000, regardless of how long people spent in an institution or what they endured. While that is a start, it must go further. I understand the intention to provide acknowledgement without re-traumatising survivors, but we must be honest: a flat sum cannot capture the varied and devastating realities through which survivors have lived. It is only the beginning of redress. A fuller, individual assessment must follow and reflect the truth of survivors' experiences. At every stage of the process, we must prioritise survivors' needs. That means avoiding re-traumatisation and means providing ongoing mental health support, trauma-informed care and clear assistance throughout. Survivors have already carried too much. The system must now carry them.

The Bill is a long-overdue first step, but, if we are serious about truth, justice and dignity, we owe survivors not just acknowledgement but accountability and not just compensation but real and lasting redress. Words of compassion are not enough. What matters now is action that is urgent, compassionate and survivor-led. Through the legislation, we have an opportunity to show that we have finally chosen to listen, to act and never to look away again. It is important that we seize that opportunity and seize it properly.

I support the Bill at its Second Stage. I look forward to scrutinising it carefully at Committee Stage and to dealing with the more technical issues in order to be truly fair and just.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the fact that we have finally got to a point at which we have legislation before the Assembly to provide for an inquiry and redress for the victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. It is a testament to the mothers and adoptees who have campaigned over many years and laid bare their souls to help us understand what they went through, which they should never have had to do but did. I know that many in the Chamber and many who came before us have met those mothers and adoptees over many years.

It is important that we all understand that this is the beginning of a legislative process, and I associate myself with much of the commentary by Members, particularly on the issue of misogyny and the fact that this was about women and their children. They were not protected because of the nature of society at that time and those who ruled it.

There must be ongoing engagement with mothers and adoptees to understand what changes may be required to meet their needs. Mothers and their children suffered at the hands of a system that treated them as though they were a stain on society, when, in fact, Church and state and their treatment of women and girls and their children were and are the stain on society. It is worth remembering that many of the mothers were little more than children, and some of them were actually children. Some suffered abuse and sexual violence, and some were in the care of the state and religious institutions, though I use the term "care" loosely. Those women and girls were further abused by those who should have cared for them when they were pregnant, frightened and vulnerable. We have heard in some of the testimonies about the physical, psychological and emotional abuse and the cruel and humiliating treatment, but we need the inquiry to get a full understanding of the scale and detail of what happened. There needs to be understanding and acknowledgement, and we must do our best to meet the needs of those who suffered and whose entire lives have been shaped by what happened to them.

The Committee Stage is the opportunity to get into the detail and look at what amendments may need to be made to the Bill to ensure that it meets the needs of victims and survivors. I specifically raise my concerns about the cut-off date of 2011 for posthumous payments in clause 31(5)(b). I have deep concerns about that arbitrary cut-off date for posthumous claims. It is not simply about the ability of those families to claim redress; it is very much about the acknowledgement and recognition of their loved ones who are now deceased. I appreciate that there is significant work to be done on apology and memorialisation, but the cut-off date feels particularly cruel to those whose loved ones — mothers and adopted children — have passed away. It is important that the Committee work with the Department to address that along with any other concerns that may be highlighted by the mothers and adult adoptees during the scrutiny process. I will certainly work with you to that end.

We know, because they have told us, that many of the mothers and children who went through the system suffered trauma at the hands of the Church and the state. As the Government of today, we must do all that we can to make amends for that and not to add to that trauma. I hope that we can all work together with the mothers, the adult adoptees and their families to pass legislation that will go some way to making right the terrible wrongs of the past.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

As a DUP member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the introduction of the Bill to legislate for an inquiry into the practice of mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses and to create a redress scheme for those affected by the poor practice in those institutions. This is an important stage in that process. The voices of victims and survivors are vital to ensuring that the legislation is fit for purpose. We value the engagement that we have had with them at the Committee so far and hope that that will continue.

The operation of the institutions does not stand up to modern scrutiny. It is our collective aim that the inquiry should get to the truth of what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. We wish to listen to the lived experience of victims and survivors. Whilst it is not part of the Bill, the Committee will continue to push for recognition of culpability where institutions should properly contribute to recognition payments.

When we received briefings at Committee, it was disturbing to learn details of how the institutions operated and the negative impact that that had on so many lives. A substantial foundation for the inquiry has been provided by the research that was carried out for the Northern Ireland Executive by academic experts from Queen's University Belfast and Ulster University, led by Dr Leanne McCormick and Professor Sean O'Connell and published in 2021. Their research found that, between 1922 and 1990, around 10,500 women were admitted to eight mother-and-baby institutions and around 3,000 were admitted to four Magdalene laundries in Northern Ireland. The last mother-and-baby institution closed in 1990, and the last Magdalene laundry closed in 1984. Around 20 workhouses in Northern Ireland were operating under the Poor Relief Acts, although more work is needed to detail their inclusion in the Bill.

Among the key findings in the universities' report were that a stigma was attached to pregnancy outside marriage; women and girls were admitted by families, doctors, priests and state agencies; they were required to undertake tough chores late into pregnancy; they had little preparation for childbirth; some had cold and castigating birth experiences; and many women and girls were separated from their children by the children's being placed in children's homes, fostered out or adopted. It was also found that there were significantly above-average infant mortality rates; women and girls entered Magdalene laundries by a number of routes, including from mother-and-baby institutions; work in the laundries was carried out without pay; some women spent a lifetime, died and were buried at a laundry; and the institutions were run by Roman Catholic, Protestant, state and charity authorities. It was further found that the most common reason why women were admitted to mother-and-baby institutions was family pressure to hide a pregnancy outside marriage; and, in some cases, the pregnancy was the result of a sexual crime, including rape, incest and unlawful carnal knowledge.

Throughout the evidence that we received, I was left with the impression that whoever's interest was being served by the running of the institutions, it was not that of the women who were admitted nor their babies. It had a lot to do with the abuse of power. The report states:

"In the majority of testimony gathered on these four homes, women provided vivid accounts of being made to feel ashamed about their pregnancy and suggested that the atmosphere was authoritarian and judgemental."

Detailed information on the outcome for the babies is limited. For two homes, records show that just 26% of babies who were born there left the home with their birth mother; 32% of babies were placed in institutional homes; 23% were adopted; and another 15% were listed as going to foster parents.

The reasons why women were admitted to Magdalene laundries covered a wide range of circumstances, including referrals by welfare authorities; the courts, as an alternative to imprisonment; family members; clergy; and from mother-and-baby homes, as a form of so-called penitence after giving birth. The report states that some women were sent to the Magdalene laundries because they had learning difficulties. It also states that girls and young women who were the victims of sexual assault and incest were placed in a St Mary's home at the direction of the courts or by a family member. In other cases, individuals referred themselves to one of the St Mary's homes due to a personal crisis. Issues included domestic abuse, alcohol addiction, homelessness or the breakdown of family networks. It is deeply disturbing that so many women and girls, in a wide range of vulnerable circumstances, were sent to those institutions where they experienced harsh conditions and a lack of the specialist support that they should have received.

The redress scheme is proposed to provide a recognition payment of £10,000 for people who were admitted to one of the relevant institutions during the relevant years, including children who were born in an institution or just after their mother had been there. We welcome the simplified eligibility criteria, and we hope that everyone who can apply will do so.

The power to establish a victim and survivor advisory panel to work alongside the inquiry chair is a positive move in ensuring that the voices of victims and survivors are heard throughout the process.

We are pleased to note that the initial £10,000 payment will not impact on benefits, take into account other payments or require the individual applicant to sign a waiver. That is an important difference between this redress scheme and the HIA redress scheme. We welcome the fact that the £10,000 is an admission-based payment and note that a harm-based payment scheme will follow. We welcome the fact that family members, meaning a surviving spouse or partner and children, are all eligible to make an individual posthumous application on behalf of their deceased and to claim £2,000. We are aware of and have learned from truth recovery and redress schemes that have been implemented elsewhere, including in Scotland, Lambeth in London, the Republic of Ireland and Canada.

The payment will not undo the hurt and suffering of the past, but it is an acknowledgement of the hurt that has been caused and the lives that have been impacted on. We thank those who have assisted us so far to uncover the truth. The shame rightly belongs to all parts of society that permitted women and girls to be placed into institutions where they and their babies were let down by all of us. The Bill will enable us to acknowledge that harm and to face our collective responsibility for it.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na hAirí as an Bhille seo. Lá róthábhachtach atá ann.

[Translation: I thank the Ministers for the Bill. This is a very important day.]

This legislation is very important, and, as other Members have said, this is a momentous day. No doubt, it is a day that many individuals and their families have been waiting for, for their whole life. In my time here — I have been here since 2007 — this is one of the most momentous pieces of legislation that I have seen.

Every Member who has spoken in the debate has been able to give only a glimpse of some of the issues that have disturbed and infuriated us, made us cry and made us angry; in particular, the way in which injustices and shame were inflicted on many women and girls and their families. For me, today is a start: this will shine some light on what happened to women and girls in so-called mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. This legislation, as others have said, will provide the basis for a full public inquiry, and that is really important. The victims and survivors and their families have been campaigning for that for decades.

As has already been mentioned, no one should be in any doubt that, because of the way that our society was, it not only allowed those scandals and, in my opinion, crimes to happen, it actually facilitated them. Women and girls who became pregnant were treated disgracefully , and their families were treated disgracefully. Other Members have talked about the pathway from which the women and girls entered those institutions — some were sexually abused and raped, all were traumatised and all were alone. The context that allowed that to happen was patriarchy, gender bias and misogyny against women and girls, where women and girls were viewed as "less than" and as "others", and what they experienced, as has been proven in other jurisdictions, was forced adoptions, coercion and control, cruelty and barbaric practices in institutions that showed a complete lack of compassion for women and girls that were in their care. As Sinéad and others have said, no care was shown whatsoever. There was no sensitivity and no regard for the women and girls and their experiences.

Many of the girls who entered those institutions were children. By today's definition, they were children, and no one questioned why 14-year-old girls, 13-year-old girls and 12-year-old girls went into those institutions pregnant. No one questioned that. For me, that was a complete indictment on us. It is imperative that the stories and the lived experiences of those women and girls are front and centre.

As Junior Minister Pam Cameron said during her introduction, the legislation is an opportunity for a public inquiry to start. That is really important. I do not think that any of us would even try to say that it could completely replace or eradicate the trauma experienced then and the trauma that is lived through every day of their life, but it is an important start, and there is a lot of work to be done.

A lot of Members have concerns already, and some of those have been mentioned. It is appropriate for us all to acknowledge the bravery of those women and girls and their families in coming forward. Acknowledgement must also be given to TEO officials, the truth recovery panel and the consultative forums for all the work that has been done to try to support people up until now. It is important for us all to say, "We see you, we hear you, and we want to ensure that recognition is realised through this legislation, which will end in a public inquiry that is just and fair".

Aspects of the Bill have already been flagged up, and I will not repeat what other Members have said. I just want to say that. It is not that I do not think that they are important; there is no point in repeating them. However, other things that really concern me are aspects of the Bill that look at the possibility of institutions and others giving evidence to any public enquiry with anonymity. That is grossly unfair, and it flies against everything that we want to do. It is important that if victims and survivors and their families feel that the flexibility of giving evidence in private is the only way that they can do that, then so be it. However, no institution that was responsible for the cruelty, hurt and pain should be allowed the luxury of giving evidence in private. None of us should allow that to happen. We understand article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), on the right to respect for your private and family life. We get that, but let no institution use article 8 to duck out of facing people. They may not have been personally responsible, but the institutions, which they work for and are part of, were responsible.

The concerns that I have raised relate to clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17. They are also there in clause 40 specifically. We raised those with the officials who attended the Committee, and I believe that they are going to look at them with careful consideration.

Another aspect of the Bill that has been raised with us — it was raised in previous legislation, particularly the Adoption and Children Act — is access to public records. When I say "public records", that is what they are. It is someone's life; it is their history; it is their story. They need to have that access, and we need to ensure that they get it and that no stone is left unturned to ensure that people get whatever information they have not got until now. That is really important. We all agreed on that in Committee.

Sinéad and Paula pointed out that our Executive have stepped up and stepped forward in introducing this legislation to establish a public inquiry. They have also tried, in some way, to look at redress schemes. Everyone spoke about posthumous claims, and I concur with that. I believe that the mother-and-baby institutions, the Magdalene laundries, the workhouses and, indeed, the state-run institutions need to step forward. As Paula mentioned, they refused to come to the Committee. They sent letters. In fact, I specifically remember one piece of correspondence in which they said that running those schemes cost them money. No compassion, no love — an absolutely disgraceful response. I know that we all on the Committee — indeed, those who are not on the Committee — will be steadfast in ensuring that, with whatever means we have, not only will they be held to account, but they will pay. They must pay. It will never replace anyone or address the hurt and trauma, but, for me, voluntarily contributing what they think to be appropriate should not be allowed.

I understand that some of the institutions have been listed simply because of the research that Brian outlined by Queen's University and Ulster University. I know that, even in my constituency of North Belfast, where two of the institutions were listed, there were others. There were private hospitals and private homes. That was where all the middle-class girls were sent. The middle-class girls were sent to the private hospitals. I am not saying that they were not traumatised. They absolutely were. Were they under coercive control? Yes, they were. Were their children adopted against their will? Yes, they were. We need to look into that, and I hope that the inquiry will shine a light on those practices as well.

We, and our Executive, are now in possession of the ending violence against women and girls strategy. The Department and the Minister of Justice introduced legislation around coercion and control. These women are one of the best examples of a lived history of violence against women and girls and coercion and control. The worst injustice that we can do to them and their families is not to recognise that. It is essential that we find out what happened, as laid out in the Bill, why it happened and who was responsible. We need to know, and others have raised that before. It includes the high mortality rates of wee babies who were either born dead or died shortly after birth. Where were they? Who took them? Where are they buried? Are their graves marked? We need to find answers to all those questions. I firmly believe that although those babies have been buried, none of us will allow their history to be buried. It is really important that that acknowledgement comes as well, because, frankly, all this was done in secrecy in the context of what women and girls faced.

What we are all determined to do through this legislation — we will do it, starting with our Committee Stage tomorrow — is try to honour those people as best we can by fighting to ensure that we get some sense of justice. None of us will even try to say, "We will get you full justice", because we cannot do that, but we will do our best. We guarantee that we will do our best. We will support you right through. Above all else, we need to make sure that nothing like this ever, ever happens again.

I thank the families and individuals who came to the Committee and the many people who met me individually — you know who you are. I also want to assure the adult adoptees that we will ensure that they are not forgotten in this either. That goes from the very birth certificates that had "Adopted" stamped right across them. That needs to be challenged and changed. One thing about this place is that, when it comes to this legislation, there is a cigarette paper between each and every one of us, regardless of political party or complexion. We see you all, we hear you, and we will fight to ensure that you are supported and recognised and, indeed, that you get some sense of justice.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome progress on the matter by way of the Inquiry and Redress Scheme Bill and the opportunity to contribute to the debate at Second Reading.

The magnitude of historical institutional abuse has been a blight on our shared societal history and the history of the institutions that were directly involved. It is imperative that victims remain our primary focus. A victim-centred approach has been the aim of the Executive Office. I welcome the work that has been done to bring the Bill to the House. Of course, it is only the beginning of the process. Much is still to be done to continue to support those who have been affected and to acknowledge the life experiences of the individuals and families touched by those historical horrors.

Turning to some of the specifics of the Bill, I welcome its clarity on payments. I am glad that clause 37, for instance, makes provision for single lump sum payments for recipients and that initial £10,000 admission-based payments will not impact on an individual's benefit entitlement nor take into account other payments or require any waivers to be signed. That is an important distinction from any previous redress scheme and will ensure that recipients can avail themselves of the financial award in its entirety. I welcome the £10,000 admission-based payment and note that a harm-based payment scheme will follow. It is important that admission payments be administered as quickly and efficiently as possible, cognisant of the age demographic of many of those affected by historical abuse.

I am pleased that provision has been made at clause 35 for the prioritisation of applications for those who are suffering from a terminal illness. In addition, the simplified criteria for scheme eligibility will undoubtedly aid and, I hope, boost the number of applicants who come forward to avail themselves of the scheme, which will, in some way, acknowledge the tremendous weight of hurt that was visited upon the many victims of historical institutional abuse, be it in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries or workhouses across Northern Ireland.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I thank him and many other Members, particularly the Member for North Belfast who spoke just before him, for their contributions to the debate. I want to pay tribute to the work of the Executive Office. I am not on the Executive Office Committee this time round, but I was during the previous mandate, and I know just how powerful those testimonies are. It was one of the most shameful actions in the history of this country. It was deplorable.

The Member mentioned the Bill's victim-centric focus. I firmly agree. Sadly, victims have been let down over many years. It is lamentable that so many victims and survivors have died waiting for redress and justice. To that end, does the Member agree with me and others who have spoken in the debate that the Bill needs to go further, that we cannot have a hierarchy of victims and that we need to broaden it out to ensure that everybody who was impacted on is able to avail themselves of the redress scheme?

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, I totally agree. I appreciate that. Thank you.

There is tremendous hurt and anger around the issue. We must acknowledge that. The Committee has been alive to the lived realities and experiences of so many victims and survivors. We have all heard accounts from those who were subjected to horrific physical and emotional abuse. Whilst the Bill will never undo past tragedies, nor could it ever quantify the trauma that was experienced in appropriate financial terms, it provides, in some small way, for an official acknowledgement of the wrongdoing that was experienced by victims. As the Executive Office moves in the coming months to enact the Bill's contents, it is vital that, throughout the process, the voices of victims continue to be heard. Provision for the creation of an advisory panel, alongside the inquiry panel, is a positive element of the Bill and demonstrates a victim-centred approach and victim-centred action.

The pain of the past can never be undone, but the Bill is a recognition of that pain. I support the Bill's passage.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I start by recognising that, at the very heart of the Bill, for my party and me, are the victims and survivors and their families, who are watching the debate. The Bill is long overdue, but it finally sets in motion a statutory inquiry into what happened in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses and begins the process of redress. The Bill is not perfect — I will come to that later in my comments — but it does do something very important: it tells us that what happened matters, that people's pain matters and that the institutions and the state can no longer hide behind silence.

As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office who is speaking on behalf of the Alliance Party, I am here to support the Bill's moving to its Committee Stage so that we can make it better. Survivors deserve more than words: they deserve action. That means that we have to get the legislation right. The Bill does some good things. It sets up an inquiry with proper powers to compel document delivery, call witnesses and uncover the truth. It starts a redress process, which, as we have heard, includes a standardised payment of £10,000 for each eligible survivor and of £2,000 for a qualifying relative where a survivor has passed since 2011. It commits to a further, individually assessed scheme to look at specific harms. It also creates a redress service to oversee that work. Let us be honest, however: many major concerns remain. As other Members have said, the 2011 cut-off date for posthumous claims is plain wrong. Families who lost loved ones before that arbitrary date are being told that they do not count. That is not justice but hard-hearted, cold bureaucracy, and that date needs to, and must, be changed.

We have also heard that £10,000 is not enough. As others have said in the House today, that is the figure that was used for the victims of historical institutional abuse some five years ago. With inflation, it is worth even less today. Yes, it is a start, but, if we are to be honest about the scale of suffering endured, we know that it simply does not go far enough. The scheme is based on admissions, not on what happened to people once they were inside the system. That leaves out too much. For the women and girls who were subjected to forced labour, for the children who were separated from their mothers and for the survivors of abuse, the scheme risks being seen as being tokenistic.

The second scheme, which is one for individual harm —.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr Dickson, please resume your seat. Ladies and gentlemen, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when Stewart Dickson will be called to continue his remarks.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm.

On resuming (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Questions 12 and 14 have been withdrawn.

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

1. Mr McNulty asked the Minister of Justice to outline any consideration that she has given to taking forward recommendation 15 of the 'Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland Independent Review' report as part of the Justice Bill. (AQO 2213/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In recent days, we have seen how the use of threatening and abusive words and materials targeted at the most vulnerable in society can spread fear and division in communities and incite hatred. I continue to prioritise actions to deliver support for victims of hate crime, including those who are the target of hate expressions. The delivery of foundational hate crime legislation provisions in this mandate remains a key priority for DOJ. Those provisions, delivered through a sentencing Bill and a victims and witnesses of crime Bill, will modernise hate crime law in Northern Ireland and provide a more robust system to sanction offenders.

In his review of hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland, Judge Marrinan recommended:

"There should be a clear and unambiguous statutory duty on relevant public authorities including Councils, the Department for Infrastructure and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, to take all reasonable steps to remove hate expression from their own property and, where it engages their functions, broader public space."

Policy development work on the removal of hate expressions is ongoing, which includes liaising with the named authorities in the recommendation and the PSNI. As that work is complex and ongoing, I do not intend to include recommendation 15 provisions in the Justice Bill that is under consideration by the Committee.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer. During the past number of weeks, McLaughlin and Harvey has been contracted to remove hate graffiti from bridges in the Newry area. That is very positive.

Minister, recommendation 15 states:

"There should be a clear and unambiguous statutory duty on ... public authorities ... to take all reasonable steps to remove hate expression from their own property and ... broader public space."

In other words, the removal of material that facilitates racist and sectarian intimidation from housing. Do you agree that that is a vital legislative step, given recent attacks?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I agree that it is vital that hate expressions be removed from public display. Their remaining in place normalises and makes acceptable the expression of sentiments and violent thoughts that are not acceptable in a civilised society. We need to acknowledge that. The issue is how we take that forward. The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report, for example, looked at the display of emblems and symbols in public spaces. Collectively, as five parties, we were unable to get agreement on how that would be taken forward. I want to look specifically at the recommendations by Judge Marrinan. However, given that they would create duties on local authorities that fall outside the purview of the Department of Justice, I need the cooperation of other Departments to bring them into effect.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, there are those in society who seek out offence, even where none exists. One of your former Alliance Party colleagues on Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council called for the removal of a completely inoffensive biblical verse from a wall in Portstewart. Will the Minister guarantee that neither recommendation 15 nor any other hate crime legislation will lead to the persecution of those of faith in public spaces or the development of a thought police at the expense of free speech?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There is, of course, a salty retort that I could make about those who seek offence, but I will set that aside and be more ministerial in my approach to the Member's question. As the Speaker has acknowledged, I am not here to answer questions on behalf of the Alliance Party. The Member knows that. However, what I can say, as a person of faith, is that there is nothing in my faith or any other faith that justifies the use of hateful language, expression or behaviour. Those who believe that their faith justifies such expression or behaviour need to reconnect with it.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Answer the question. What about a verse?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me, Jonathan.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

She will not answer questions.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me, Jonathan.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I will move on to a question that the Minister can answer because the topic is within her Department's portfolio and remit.

Victims are at the heart of a lot of the assaults that have occurred over the past few weeks. Will the Minister outline a little more the work that her Department has undertaken to support victims of hate crime?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, providing guidance and practical assistance in the aftermath of hate crimes offers vital support at a critical time. Enhanced protections for victims are available through a range of mechanisms. Direct support is provided through the Hate Crime Advocacy Service, which is jointly funded by DOJ and the PSNI. That service supports victims as they journey through the criminal justice process, signposts them to support services and can assist with third-party reporting to the PSNI.

DOJ, PSNI, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) and the Department for Communities jointly fund the hate incident practical action scheme (HIPA), which provides personal and home protection measures if someone's home has been damaged or they have been the victim of hate crime at their home. The HELPinHAND app provides multilingual avatars to help to support the victims of hate crimes in their own language and provides an understanding of how the criminal justice system works.

We also support the work of policing and community safety partnerships, which includes raising awareness and education initiatives to reduce hate crime in local communities. We will introduce provisions as part of the sentencing Bill that will modernise race hate crime law in Northern Ireland. That will provide a more robust system for sanctioning offenders and will improve support for victims of hate crimes.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Minister, after the attack on the Belfast Islamic Centre, there was swift follow-up action and a person appeared in court yesterday. Will you ensure that there will also be swift follow-up responses to and accountability for those who have carried out attacks across the North recently?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, I condemn the attack on the Islamic Centre in Belfast at the weekend. It has caused distress and alarm not only among those who were at prayer when it happened but among those who regularly use the centre and other members of the community. We in DOJ are committed to playing our part in trying to deliver a safer community for all, including the victims of race hate crimes and Islamophobia, in partnership with other government bodies and beyond. I have been reassured by the Chief Constable that he intends to take swift and robust action when following up on those offences. I have also been reassured by the PPS and the courts that they have the capacity to deal with that. I have said publicly that if more resources are required to expedite that action, we are open to listening to those calls for additional support.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

2. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Justice to outline any further action that her Department can take to support victims of domestic abuse. (AQO 2214/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Significant support and provision have already been made available under the seven-year domestic and sexual abuse strategy for 2024 to 2031, which my Department leads in partnership with the Department of Health. The support and provision pillar of the strategy is intended to ensure that all victims of domestic and/or sexual abuse can access tailored, responsive and specialised support and provision to allow them to recover and rebuild their life.

Support that is in place under the strategy includes the sexual offences legal adviser (SOLA) pathway project, which provides victims of serious sexual offences with a wide range of legal advice and information up to the point of a trial. I have extended that project from February to include a children's SOLA service. There is a domestic violence and abuse disclosure scheme that is aimed at protecting victims and future victims of domestic abuse, and that includes the right to ask and the power to tell. There is the ASSIST NI advocacy service for high-risk victims of domestic abuse and victims of serious sexual offences who are engaged with the justice system, and a bespoke children and young people's service?under the same auspices is due to commence on 1 July.? There is a 24-hour domestic abuse helpline in Northern Ireland that is provided by Nexus and funded jointly by DOJ, DFC and DOH. Advocacy support services are delivered to families after the domestic homicide of a family member or friend.

It is important to acknowledge, however, that domestic and sexual abuse is not just a Justice or a Health issue and that other Departments have also made a range of support available. As implementation of the strategy progresses, further action plans will be developed, building on earlier actions where necessary and developing new actions as appropriate.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. A number of victims and survivors groups have raised with me breaches of non-molestation orders. Will you detail what steps are being taken to ensure that victims are adequately protected following repeated breaches of non-molestation orders?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I would like to, but, unfortunately, non-molestation orders fall under the Department of Finance's remit. However, we have raised the level of protection that the non-molestation orders offer to people who have an order that has been breached. The breach of a non-molestation order is a criminal offence. Therefore, a person can be taken to court for that. How it is progressed is an operational matter for court officials, the judiciary and the police. However, I want to make sure that the proper protections are in place to ensure that people have the wrap-around services that they need. We have specifically raised non-molestation orders with the Department of Finance to see whether the system requires any reform.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Minister, will you outline what action your Department is taking to prevent the harmful and abusive behaviours that are linked to domestic abuse?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Department provides funding for the Probation Board for Northern Ireland's promoting positive relationships programme, which is aimed at adult males who have demonstrated the potential to be abusive in intimate partner relationships and at cases in which children are assessed by social services as being at risk. A key feature of that programme is the inclusion of a dedicated partner support worker who provides support to the participant's current partner. That programme is delivered in all five trust areas. In addition, we recently approved a significant increase in investment in the programme, which will allow the number of programmes that are delivered annually to rise from 60 to 90. That will help with intervention and support.

As part of the new domestic and sexual abuse strategy, my Department will undertake work to look at costed options to enhance measures to address abusive behaviours. We also work hard to tackle the toxic masculinity and misogynistic ideologies that are so closely linked to domestic violence. Tackling those issues cannot be achieved by DOJ alone. As the departmental lead on ending violence against women and girls, TEO has an important role to play, as do the UK Government, who hold the reserved power to regulate for online environments, where such ideologies are often spread.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, what more do you feel can be done by the Department to raise awareness of legal aid waivers for domestic violence protection?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are a couple of things. First, I am aware that a number of people who have approached their solicitor about the waiver for legal aid in domestic violence cases have been advised that it was not available or sent down a different track. We engaged with the Law Society, asking it to provide its practitioners with more information on that, so that they are fully aware that the waiver is an option. The second issue is the feedback that we received from the legal profession itself, which shows that obtaining the waiver can be quite a tricky and engaged process. We are, therefore, looking at how to simplify the process to make it more accessible for practitioners and, ultimately, their clients.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister outline any discussions that she has had with the Minister for Communities about the ongoing review of the Housing Executive's common selection scheme in order to ensure that victims of domestic violence are properly reflected in the new points system?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

That is one of the issues that I raised as a member of the Executive in response to the paper that came to the Executive about the review of the housing priority scheme. In a society that is changing and developing rapidly, it is really important that we look at equity in how victims of domestic and sexual violence and abuse are treated on the housing waiting list. Some schemes are already available. For example, there are schemes that provide more security for a family that has been targeted in their home by domestic violence and abuse so that they are able to ask the partner to leave as opposed to the family having to leave, which so often is what happens. Making people more aware of those schemes is something that we could do jointly.

I welcome the fact that the Communities Minister's intention is to give priority to domestic violence and abuse victims, because, often, the biggest fear that people have as they leave their home is where they can go. The tendency is for people to see it simply as a house, but it is not; it is a home that someone has invested in for many years. My preference is for the perpetrators to be removed, not the victims.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

3. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of the importance of notifying local residents if a child sex offender is living in their area. (AQO 2215/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Existing arrangements are in place under the PSNI child protection disclosure scheme, allowing information to be disclosed to members of the public in cases where doing so is necessary to protect a child or children from serious harm. Such information may be requested by any member of the public and will be disclosed by the police, where it appropriate to do so. Police or other agencies may also proactively disclose information on serious offenders in cases where doing so is necessary in order to protect victims, potential victims or other persons in the community.

Those mechanisms are in line with the disclosure requirements set out in article 50 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and with the statutory guidance that my Department has issued to agencies that are involved in the public protection arrangements in Northern Ireland (PPANI). I consider the arrangements to be consistent with child safeguarding requirements. I encourage anyone who is concerned that an individual poses a risk of harm to children to contact the police, in the first instance, to seek disclosure.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Thank you, Minister. Minister, there have been a couple cases in my constituency, recently, in which people have been moved and housed, and it has then come out, some time later, that there is a child sex offender living in the park, much to the alarm of local residents.

Are you suggesting that, every time somebody new moves into an estate where children are, the local residents should seek information about them in the interests of safeguarding their children?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am not suggesting that: I am suggesting that, where there is a risk and the police deem it proportionate, they will notify local families of an issue. Child safeguarding is the priority, so the police and other agencies can proactively disclose information about offenders, but that has to be proportionate, and it is critical that the criminal justice agencies operate lawfully. Case law has determined that disclosure must be proportionate to the risk posed, necessary for public protection and in accordance with the law, so automatic disclosure in all cases is unlikely to be lawful. That is in line with the approach in other parts of the UK and in the Republic of Ireland. Automatic disclosure could lead to members of the public being wrongly identified as sex offenders, because there are rules on the information that can be disclosed.

From my perspective, the important thing is this: if anyone is concerned about an individual who behaves at all inappropriately or suspiciously around children, they should report that to the police and seek the disclosure of any history that that individual might have.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, I ask you to outline broadly the action that your Department is taking to address sexual offending.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

We are trying to progress a number of work streams that will address sexual offending and the harm that it causes. I have already strengthened the law in that area through the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act 2022, which includes among others new offences of upskirting, downblousing, cyberflashing and pretending to be a child for the purposes of child grooming.

I propose to strengthen the law further with the extension of a number of the provisions of the UK Crime and Policing Bill — as the Member will be aware, the first of two legislative consent motions (LCMs) was agreed by the House yesterday — including strengthening and streamlining the sex offender notification requirements, because it is important that the authorities know where a sex offender is. That Bill also provides for notification requirements for sex offenders who wish to change their name and get a replacement identity in a new name. It brings the "paedophile manual" provisions into line with modern technology and deals with AI-generated images.

At Consideration Stage of the current Justice Bill, I hope to table amendments that we are due to consult on shortly on deepfake image offences. Unfortunately, the opportunity to do that via a Westminster Bill changed because the Government removed those clauses from the Crime and Policing Bill on foot of a private Member's Bill being introduced, so we will do that with the consent of the Committee through the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Significant work is happening. We are also looking at a public protection arrangements and multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) review. Good work is being done, but we always keep a watching brief on what is a serious issue.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member who tabled this important question. Many parents and families in my constituency care deeply about transparency about sex offenders in their community and around their children. Minister, what is your assessment of the use of the castration of known paedophiles who have been through our justice system and are now in our communities, having caused harm to children and minors?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There is no provision in Northern Ireland law for the chemical castration — I presume that that is what the Member means — of sex offenders. The Member is obviously aware that the issue was raised as part of the sentencing review that was undertaken in GB for England and Wales. The review asked the Government to look in more detail at the evidence base. There are competing arguments in favour and against, not just in the human rights space — this refers only to voluntary chemical castration; there is no prospect of involuntary chemical castration — as significant concerns have been expressed that reliance on chemical castration can lead to situations in which the supervision of an individual is reduced and the harm is not adequately addressed. We will keep a watching brief, see what happens in England and Wales in the building of the evidence base and review that.

I will say that the monitoring of sexual offenders, while complex, is robust.

We have a series of measures, whether those are licence conditions, notification requirements, the monitoring of people on the sex offenders register or PPANI arrangements. A number of agencies and organisations work hard to ensure that sex offenders who return to the community are properly monitored and that their behaviours are closely watched.

This is the key for anyone who wants to protect their children: you cannot simply rely on the fact that somebody has previously offended or is a known offender as an indicator. There are many people who have been offenders for many years who live among us and are trustworthy to all intents and purposes, yet the fact that they are sex offenders can emerge much later. The key for parents is to be guarded around all adults.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her answer. She touched on the point that I wanted to raise. What can be done by her Department and by the Education Minister to raise that awareness? There was a programme called "Talk PANTS", which was absolutely excellent. What more can we do in that space so that parents, young people and children understand that the greatest risk comes from those who have access to them and the trust of their family? We need to stop worrying about strangers and start worrying —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— about the people who are in our homes and around us.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I totally agree with the Member. We were all raised on a diet of stranger danger, where we were told that the people whom we had to be afraid of lurked in parks wearing macs. The truth is that they did not do that; they lived among us. If you look at the history of sexual abuse, you see that they were people in the clergy and those who had access to children through organisations that were respected. They were family, trusted individuals and friends. We also need to be careful about getting that balance right, because the majority of young people who are abused are abused by somebody known to the family. That is the reality of the situation. Whilst we should never diminish the stranger danger part, it is not the main threat.

It is important that we do it through education. That is where I believe that age-appropriate, non-judgemental relationships and sexuality education is hugely important, because those are exactly the conversations that we need to start having with our young people. We need to tell them what is and is not appropriate. We need to give them the agency to say if they are uncomfortable with touch or how somebody behaves towards them and the opportunity, in lessons of that nature, to disclose if they have been so unfortunate as to have been abused.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

4. Ms Mulholland asked the Minister of Justice to outline why equal protection is not addressed in the Justice Bill [NIA Bill 07/22-27]. (AQO 2216/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The current law in Northern Ireland on the physical punishment of children is based on the concept of reasonable chastisement. Article 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 has the effect of restricting the grounds on which the defence of reasonable chastisement can be used. In essence, that means that, if a parent or adult smacks a child and is prosecuted, they can defend themselves on the basis of reasonable chastisement but only if the harm is minor. Anything that causes more than transitory or minor discomfort is unlawful and can result in prosecution. Consequently, a mild smack is still legal in Northern Ireland.

I met the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which published a report in 2024 on the impact of physical punishment on children and young people. The report found that the use of physical punishment has a negative impact on children’s physical and mental health, as well as their social, emotional and behavioural outcomes. It also raised concerns that identifying abuse became a more subjective process for professionals, allowing abusers to hid behind the defence. That is why I fully support changing the law in Northern Ireland. However, the issues are broader than criminal justice alone, and any change to the law would require Executive agreement. Despite my best efforts and support from expert stakeholders, including Northern Ireland's Children's Commissioner, I have not been able to secure the Executive agreement needed to deliver a change in the law in that area in the Justice Bill. However, I will continue to seek the support my ministerial colleagues to repeal the defence of reasonable chastisement in Northern Ireland and move towards a position of equal protection.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you so much, Minister. Can you outline the legislative context in which other jurisdictions in GB and Ireland operate and how children are protected there?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Children in Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland have equal protection from assault with adults. The Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Act 2019 removed the common law defence of reasonable chastisement from the law of Scotland on 7 November 2020. It was commenced 12 months later. The Welsh Government's Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act 2020 came into force on 21 March 2022. A comprehensive multimedia stakeholder and public awareness campaign was completed before commencement. A three-year interim review will provide a post-implementation report, which is due to be laid before the end of this year.

Campaigners for children's rights still wait for equivalent legislation in England and Northern Ireland, leading to an uneven picture of child protection across the UK.

On 11 November 2015, the Irish Parliament adopted legislation explicitly repealing the common law defence of reasonable chastisement of children. That came into force on 11 December 2015.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

5. Mr Brooks asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the status and progression of the PSNI’s workforce recovery business case. (AQO 2217/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

While the Minister of Finance and I have approved the PSNI workforce recovery business case, affordability remains a key concern, given the current pressures on public finances. I have heard the comments made by the First Minister, and I would like to see this funding prioritised. I then had a constructive meeting with the Finance Minister about the business case this morning, and it will, ultimately, be for him to bring it to the Executive for approval. This funding could be a game changer in ensuring that we can grow officer numbers and put the PSNI on a sustainable footing. Every party in the Assembly has acknowledged that the PSNI is not adequately staffed, so now is the time to support funding for that business case.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Our party, of course, supports that work and was among the first to push for it. Given her meeting with the Finance Minister, can she provide any insight into which Departments may be asked to provide resource for it?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will provide some clarity. As things stand, the PSNI has set aside a provisional £7 million this year for recruitment in the first year, which is the first year of the business plan. However, because that has not yet been funded by the Executive, that adds to its pressures, which are around £21 million, with £7 million of that for the business case for recruitment. Even if the PSNI were to get the £7 million, we would have to find a way of bridging the remaining gap of £14 million for it to be affordable. The Chief Constable has agreed to do a piece of work on that.

Next year, it will cost about £26 million, so the hope is that, when we come to set a three-year Budget, we will look at the three years from the point where that Budget will kick in and make an allocation for each of those three years. That would then allow us to ensure that the PSNI rises to 7,000 officers and roughly 2,500 staff and is maintained at that level post reaching it after three years. We are still working through that, so allocations in this year would definitely be welcome in starting the process, but we need that longer-term horizon to make it work.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Minister, can you outline the steps that you have taken to prioritise resourcing of the PSNI in the current budgetary environment?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I have taken every opportunity to do that: first, in the opening Budget allocations and as we have gone through the year to date; in fairness, we are only about 10 weeks into the year. Some 65% of the funding that came into the Department of Justice went to PSNI, and 35% provides for the entire remainder of the system. That gives you some idea of the proportional split. We have to run everything else, including courts, probation and prisons, on the remaining 35% of the budget.

We also know that there are other challenges. We got an additional £5 million towards making our communities safer, which was one of the priorities in the Executive programme, and the PSNI will receive £4·75 million of that, which is 95% of it. In addition to the baseline allocation, we had Executive allocations of £132·3 million, and PSNI received just over £86 million of that. From my perspective, there has been a prioritisation of the PSNI. It also got £3·3 million towards the increased costs of employer National Insurance contributions. I also submitted a bid, in light of the recent riots, for £5 million to help the police with the additional costs of mutual aid. However, it is sad that that £5 million has gone, essentially, in supporting the policing of riots when it could have gone directly into increasing the number of officers available to do general policing.

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

I have a quick question. I hope that we will hear that the requirements of the business plan will be met this year, given that some of the words from the First Minister indicated that they would. When that workforce plan is published, will it address what now appears to be a crisis in Catholic recruitment to the PSNI? Numbers are at an all-time low. I do not necessarily want to get into all of the old categories, but we need to rescue Catholic levels of recruitment. Does the Minister agree?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister, you have 60 seconds.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is important that our Police Service be representative, and I look forward to working with the Member to ensure that it is, going forward.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister, that ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

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

T1. Mr McNulty asked the Minister of Justice, given that, last week, a headline in the 'Belfast Telegraph' reported that a lot of young people believe that they missed out on the Troubles, and given that many of us grew up and were shaped by the violence, the maiming, the murder, the fear and the terror of the Troubles, why it is that young people today, who were born after the peace process, are coming to the view that the Troubles' horrendous violence and devastation, which still haunts and scars people to this day, is something on which they missed out; and further asked what measures are being taken to address the underlying causes of youth disengagement and susceptibility to paramilitary propaganda and influence. (AQT 1461/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will answer the first part of that question as best I can, although it is not necessarily one for the Department of Justice alone to answer. A number of factors are involved. First, there is young people's lack of lived experience. Young people see stuff on television and think that it looks exciting. If you have never feared for your life in the way in which the people who lived at interfaces when riots were taking place did, you will not recognise the potential risks. Young people, because of the stage that they are at in their development, are often risk-takers. They often do not foresee long-term consequences in the same way in which adults do. There is therefore a tendency for them to engage in high-risk behaviours, and that is challenging to deal with. There are also those who are subject to criminal coercive control in communities, and there has been, online and in communities, a degree of indoctrination and radicalisation of young people to think that rioting is exciting.

I say very gently to Members in the Chamber that, if we glorify people and put them on a pedestal as heroes because of things that they did during what was a horrendous period, there is a risk that young people will view them as people whom they should emulate instead of looking up to those who were law-abiding throughout and who adhered to the normal rules of society. As we work through how we respect those who have passed, we have to be conscious that we do not glorify situations or behaviours that could endanger another generation of young people.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer. Does the Minister share my concern that the Executive in which her party occupies positions — an Executive with the supposed aim of stopping paramilitarism — are led by a party that puts propaganda on illegal billboards and on social media and uses every channel possible to glorify IRA violence and bloodletting and that is allied with a unionist leadership that is soft on the erection of UVF and UDA flags and paraphernalia? Is she concerned that they are collaborating to perpetuate sectarian hate, thus dividing our community?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

It is a time for questions, Justin, not speeches.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

My initial answer made clear my views on paramilitarism. I have been consistent throughout my political career that there can be no place in our society for paramilitarism. Although I respect the right of every community to respect its dead and to commemorate those matters that are important to it, we all need to be conscious of the impact that doing so can have on young people and how that can influence whom they view as being a champion or a hero in their community. Let us create positive role models whom young people want to emulate so that they are able to do things without ending up spending considerable time in jail.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

T2. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Justice whether she will join him in giving her full support to the Let Them Protect campaign that the Police Federation for Northern Ireland has launched to ensure that our brave police officers right across Northern Ireland get the protection that they deserve. (AQT 1462/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am more than happy to do so. I was at the launch of the Let Them Protect campaign, and anyone who has seen the hard-hitting advertising on television will be struck by the vulnerability of the people whom the police attend to day and daily and the risks to them if PSNI officers are instead in hospital waiting rooms seeking treatment for assault. It is not acceptable that, when people run towards harm to protect us, they end up being spat on, bitten and kicked, having masonry dropped on their head and enduring a host of other abuses, including having their car rammed. When people step forward to protect the community, they deserve to have its respect and cooperation. Those who attack the PSNI are not just attacking the PSNI but attacking, first, people who are members of families and communities, and whose families are distressed by what has happened to them, and, secondly, the wider community, because they are preventing the police from attending crisis situations and thus delaying their response. That could cost any of us if we were ever to need to dial 999 in an emergency.

As part of the sentencing Bill that I will introduce in the autumn, I want to increase the aggravator that applies to assault in order to take account of anyone who is providing a public service, or a service to the public, or who is working on the front line so that that can be taken into account during sentencing.

To be clear, if somebody is serving the public, they should be able to do so without fear or threat of intimidation, violence or assault.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her strong words. I also thank her for agreeing to meet me next Tuesday to discuss the possibility of introducing Harper's law in Northern Ireland. In advance of that meeting, Minister, will you consider amending your forthcoming sentencing Bill to ensure that anyone who tries to murder our police officers will receive the life sentence that they deserve?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Member will know what I have said about not wanting to encroach on judicial discretion when it comes to particular situations. I am conscious of the risks around prescribing particular sentencing outcomes that would then apply in every case. However, I am open to discussing with the Member how we can make sure that there is a deterrent, because unlike with many of the other spontaneous crimes that we talk about, in which deterrence does not really play a role in people's decision-making, people made choices over the past number of weeks. They chose to go to the places where riots were happening, they chose to promote those riots on social media, they chose to come armed with Molotov cocktails and large pieces of masonry, and they chose to attack police officers. Making those choices should be reflected in sentencing.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

T3. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of the role of community-based restorative justice that takes place in addition to the statutory delivery of restorative justice by bodies such as the Youth Justice Agency. (AQT 1463/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

As the Member will be aware, restorative justice is something that I feel passionately about. As I said yesterday, one of the purposes of sentencing is to ensure that reparations are made to the community and people are forced to confront the impact of the harm that they cause as they offend. Part of that can be done through restorative practice.

We are doing quite a bit of work in the restorative space in setting up for accreditation groups and individuals who can operate at different tiers, whether that is at the community level of restorative practice to defuse community tensions or at the highest specialisation level of restorative practice in serious crimes such as murder and rape. Those are much more complex and require practitioners who are much more skilled, educated and experienced, but it is something that we are passionate about moving forward with.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, what engagement have you had with community-based restorative justice organisations to help inform that view and, indeed, learn about their role?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Restorative Justice Council, which is a national organisation, held its annual conference here last year, at which I spoke. I also regularly meet restorative justice practitioners, whether they are working in probation, prisons or the community and voluntary sector.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

T4. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Justice whether conditions should be put on the £200 million of new money that has been touted for the PSNI, including reducing the use of stop-and-search and stopping the use of plastic and rubber attenuating energy projectiles (AEPs) and other inhumane practices? (AQT 1464/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, plastic bullets have not been used in Northern Ireland for a very long time. The AEPs that are currently used are of a different magnitude and make, and they are not used in a liberal fashion. They are used only when there is a threat to life, and the alternative to using them is to use live rounds. We have to be careful to leave the PSNI to make the calls on how it polices those situations and the Policing Board to scrutinise the use of different tactics as they come along.

I am aware of issues with stop-and-search. Much research has been done into that, and we have received much feedback, particularly from those who feel targeted by it. However, it would not be appropriate to tie the PSNI's hands beyond what is required by the Policing Board on the appropriateness of its responses. Again, it would not be appropriate to put conditions on resourcing and link them to political points about how the police go about their operational duties. I have always been clear: the operational duties of the police are the responsibility of the Chief Constable, and he is answerable to the Policing Board.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I remind the Minister that rubber bullets and AEPs are deadly and dangerous, and they are being used. I am disappointed with that answer. Minister, how confident are you that the new money will not be used to continue the use of stop-and-search and plastic and rubber bullets, which can be lethal? Your website states that it is your responsibility to support access to justice and victims of crime. I think that the people who are targeted by those two categories fall under that.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, to clarify, I did not say that AEPs could not be fatal, because there are circumstances in which they will be, but they are less-often fatal than the alternative, which is live rounds. That is the point that I made. I did not say that AEPs are not fatal, because I know that, tragically, people have lost their life because they have been hit by a plastic bullet. Plastic bullets are no longer deployed. AEPs are now used, and they are a different category of ammunition. However, they are still ammunition. To be clear, throwing a petrol bomb at a police officer is an assault on that police officer's life. If a police officer's life were under threat anywhere else, the use of live rounds would be resorted to.

I will not get into a situation where I try to dictate to the police how they should go about their job. As I said, that is a matter for the Chief Constable, and he is accountable to the Policing Board. I am aware, however, that in order to ensure that robust safeguards are in place, the Policing Board is looking very carefully at the powers of stop-and-search and how they are used. Of course, the human rights of all of us as citizens matter, and police powers have to be fettered within the law. The Policing Board is looking at that. I do not believe that this matter should be tied to what is a basic resourcing issue. We do not have enough police officers, and, with respect, if we had more police officers engaged in more direct community policing, we might not have young people on our streets placing themselves in danger.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

T5. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Justice to outline her Department's proposals for increasing the maximum sentences for those who are found guilty of causing the death of, or serious harm to, a child or vulnerable adult. (AQT 1465/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

We are looking at proposals in the offence of causing or allowing the death of, or serious physical harm to, a child or vulnerable adult. The offence addresses cases where it is clear that a child or vulnerable adult has suffered serious harm or death but it is impossible to prove which household member was directly responsible for it. The offence could also be when one person caused the death or serious harm and another allowed it by failing to act to prevent it when they had a duty to protect the victim from harm. In such cases, both perpetrators could be charged under the proposed law.

The current maximum sentence in Northern Ireland is 14 years for cases involving death and 10 years for those involving serious harm, but in England and Wales, the maximum sentence was increased in 2022 to life for causing death and 14 years for causing serious harm. At the moment, we are consulting on whether the sentences in Northern Ireland are adequate or whether they should be increased in line with those in England and Wales. We are also inviting opinions on whether we should adopt a similar approach to that in England and Wales, with the aim of providing consistency across jurisdictions. We want to ensure that the courts have maximum flexibility in applying sentences in what are horrific cases.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Thank you, Minister. By way of a follow-up, what is the Minister's assessment of the difference that those proposed changes would make?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Increasing the maximum sentence for the offence would, of course, empower us to reflect the full gravity of cases where a child or vulnerable adult has suffered death or serious harm and where there has been a wilful failure to act to protect that person. That would send a very strong message about the seriousness with which we all view such failures and would strengthen the principle of accountability in households and caregiving environments. It would also, I hope, reassure the public that the justice system is capable of imposing proportionate penalties in what are tragic and sensitive cases. In practical terms, it would allow the court to differentiate between lower-level neglect and much more significant conduct, such as prolonged inaction in the face of obvious risk.

We will all have been horrified by some of the cases over recent years where children and vulnerable adults have clearly been abused over a protracted period, yet, astonishingly, no one in the household took the time to report the neglect or abuse. That is what we want to drive out.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

T6. Mr Bradley asked the Minister of Justice, in light of the fact that over 60 PSNI officers were injured in the recent disorder in Ballymena, Larne and Portadown and in the naked sectarian attacks in Londonderry that were directed at residents in the Fountain, what financial help her Department is giving to the PSNI to improve community engagement and build public confidence in the areas that were affected by the disorder. (AQT 1466/22-27)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister, you have less than a minute.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In the first instance, we hope to provide the PSNI with the money that allowed it to build resilience by getting mutual aid. That was around £5 million, and we are very hopeful of it coming through.

As for the wider resources that are available to the PSNI, the best way for it to build confidence in communities is to be in those communities policing them at neighbourhood level. That is why I have put forward a business case, and I am hopeful that the Executive will buy into that business case very soon.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister. Regrettably, Maurice, there is no time for a supplementary question. Time is up for questions to the Minister of Justice.

Oral Answers to Questions — Northern Ireland Assembly Commission

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Questions 6, 9 and 15 have been withdrawn.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

1. Mr K Buchanan asked the Assembly Commission whether it is undertaking a review of security arrangements for guests and visitors to Parliament Buildings. (AQO 2228/22-27)

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission takes security extremely seriously, and, while it does not comment on the detail of security arrangements, I can confirm that the most recent review of security at Parliament Buildings was carried out by the PSNI in 2022. Earlier this year, the PSNI confirmed that the findings of that review remained valid and any further exercise would be of limited value at this point.

The Assembly Commission has always sought to strike an appropriate balance between protecting everyone in Parliament Buildings and being welcoming to the public. In 2024, the Assembly Commission transferred responsibility for the reception desk to the visitor experience team. That followed consultation with the PSNI and was not considered to have any adverse impact on security, as there is a continuing presence of Assembly ushers and PSNI officers in the Great Hall and the reception area.

A partial electronic access control system is due to be installed at Parliament Buildings later this year. It will be primarily focused on the Great Hall and some areas of the first floor. It will significantly improve overall security by creating a visitor zone from which access to restricted areas will not be possible without the appropriate authority.

Security arrangements at Parliament Buildings are continually monitored on an ongoing basis, and that includes the arrangements pertaining to guests and visitors. As I said, it is not wise to discuss details of security arrangements publicly, but, if any Member has a specific concern, they should feel free to approach any senior Assembly Commission officials directly.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for the response. After the recent "Kill your local MP" comments by Kneecap, is the Commission content that it is doing all that it can to keep us safe while we are here, at home or anywhere?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for his follow-up question. As I said, we take the security of Members, visitors and staff at this Building very seriously. Plans are under way for the installation of a partial electronic access control system for Parliament Buildings. That will be later this year. The system will primarily focus on the Great Hall and some areas of the first floor. We feel that that will significantly improve overall security as it will create a visitor zone from which access to restricted areas will not be possible without the appropriate authority.

As I also said, the Assembly Commission endeavours to balance security measures with the desire to keep Parliament Buildings as welcoming and accessible as possible against the backdrop of the broader security situation.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

2. Mrs Erskine asked the Assembly Commission to outline the work of the Education Service in providing programmes to schools and colleges. (AQO 2229/22-27)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for her question. The Education Service provides education programmes and resources to support teaching and learning about the Assembly. It also encourages and facilitates the participation of young people in the work of the Assembly, with education programmes for young people from primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities.

The schools programme supports the Northern Ireland curriculum, the subjects of government and politics at GCSE and A level and of learning for life and work and history at post-primary level, and learning areas including the world around us and personal development and mutual understanding at primary level. The education programme affords Members the opportunity to participate, giving young people the opportunity to meet their elected representatives and to see democracy in action. Schools are also invited to get involved in the work of the Assembly, and, in recent years, over 80 schools have taken part in Committee consultations on the issues of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, the impact of the school lockdown on young people, and climate change. The Education Service also provides tailored programmes for school councils and Eco-Schools.

The Education Service promotes its programme widely to schools via mailshots, email and the C2k noticeboard, and Irish-medium schools now receive mailshot information in the Irish language.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you for that answer. I put on record my thanks to the education team, because it is probably one of the lesser-known things in the business that happens up here in the Assembly. I know from schools in my constituency that they really appreciate coming to Stormont and hearing about the work that goes on. Can the Member detail how many pupils take part in the Assembly's education programme annually?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for commending the Education Service's work. Many of us have brought schools up from our constituencies, and the children really enjoy the interaction with the Education Service and the opportunity to see round the Building.

During the 2024-25 academic year, 7,700 pupils visited Parliament Buildings, and a further 825 joined an online session. Those pupils came from a range of schools across all 18 constituencies.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. Miss Dolan asked the Assembly Commission to outline any plans to provide crèche facilities for staff members in Parliament Buildings. (AQO 2230/22-27)

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. There is a bit of background to the issue, so I may take longer than a minute.

During 2019, the then permanent secretary of the Department of Finance was in liaison with the Assembly Clerk/Chief Executive and other stakeholders to explore the feasibility of opening a preschool childcare facility on the Stormont estate. The intention was that such a facility could be used by Members, Members' staff, Assembly Commission staff and Civil Service staff who worked on the estate. At the time, the Department advised that the feasibility of a childcare facility on the Stormont estate could be considered as a potential action for inclusion in a draft childcare strategy that the Department of Education was developing. However, in November 2022, the Department informed the Assembly Commission that work on the childcare strategy had been paused due to the pandemic, and it was unknown whether the strategy would include the provision of a childcare facility, due to the significant changes to the Civil Service workforce on the estate, notably with regard to hybrid working. Subsequently, in September 2023, the Department confirmed that it had no immediate plans for a childcare facility on the Stormont estate.

In October 2024, the head of the Civil Service initiated a meeting with relevant stakeholders, including the Assembly's Chief Executive, to once again consider the feasibility of providing a childcare facility on the Stormont estate, and a further meeting took place at the end of April. At the beginning of June, however, the Assembly Commission and other stakeholders were informed that there would be no Northern Ireland Civil Service-wide initiative on workplace nurseries and that colleagues should continue to pursue viable options within their business areas as appropriate. The Assembly Commission remains open to exploring cooperation on such a project, but, without other partners, the proposal's viability is questionable.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that answer. Are there any plans to look at a crèche facility at Parliament Buildings, given the Department of Finance's confirmation that there are no plans for one on the wider estate?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Unfortunately, the Assembly Commission is taking forward no plans or proposals to provide a crèche facility at Parliament Buildings. As I said, without partners, such a facility would not be viable at this stage.

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

4. Mr McCrossan asked the Assembly Commission whether it will provide MLAs with a weekly list of events taking place in Parliament Buildings. (AQO 2231/22-27)

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his question. On the home page of the Assembly Commission's intranet site, AssISt, Members can find a section called 'What's On', which provides information about events, all-party groups (APGs), education groups and other engagement activities happening in Parliament Buildings in a particular week. Specific room numbers and timings are also provided. The information is collated by the Communications Office and is regularly updated to ensure that it is accurate and complete. Any Member may attend APG meetings, and Members are alerted to education and outreach events depending on the nature of the activity. It is for the sponsor and organiser, not the Assembly Commission, to determine the guest list for each event booked under the sponsored events policy.

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

I thank Andy for the answer. Does he agree that a weekly list of events would highlight opportunities for Members and, indeed, visitors to the Building, thus ensuring that it is more user-friendly and accessible than at present?

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his follow-up question. That would seem to be a sensible approach. Whilst I feel that that would be beneficial, I am here to give the Commission's corporate view. I am happy to take that back to the Commission and write to the Member.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

5. Ms Forsythe asked the Assembly Commission, in light of the Supreme Court judgment in the case For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, to outline any discussions it has had in relation to a review of the use of toilet facilities in Parliament Buildings. (AQO 2232/22-27)

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

I thank the Member for her question. On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court issued its judgement on For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, which held that the terms "man", "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. Whilst the Supreme Court judgement was not considering Northern Ireland legislation, it is acknowledged as a significant legal development that will have implications locally. As a consequence, the Equality Commission has indicated that it intends to produce new non-statutory guidance in June 2025.

The Assembly Commission held discussions on the matter on 6 May and 12 May. The Commission was unable to reach agreement to make any interim changes to the Assembly Commission’s current transgender policy and associated guidance on assisting and supporting transgender visitors and other users of Parliament Buildings. However, the Commission agreed to undertake a review of the policy and guidance, and that will include consideration of any advice and guidance that is published by the Equality Commission.

As per the Supreme Court’s judgement, the policy review will focus on the policy implications of biological sex, which largely impacts on the provision of single-sex spaces. In general, that pertains to the use of bathrooms by staff and visitors. A paper on the current policy review will be discussed at a future meeting of the Assembly Commission.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Member for his answer. This has been a case of much concern, especially with events taking place in Parliament Buildings in the past number of weeks. Is the Commission taking any steps to consider what will happen if the Equality Commission decides to look at the matter retrospectively and says that the Assembly acted inappropriately?

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

We still await the information from the Equality Commission. It is hoped that that will come in the next week — by the end of this month — and that will have to be assessed against the current legal guidance. Unfortunately, the Commission cannot disclose the advice that it has received. Once that information is received, however, it will be measured against that, and the Commission will make a determination at that stage.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member confirm that, while the changes to the Stormont toilet policy were made after consultation with the widely discredited trans lobby group Stonewall, there was no consultation with parties that are not represented on the Commission, even though we and our staff use those facilities?

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

As has been highlighted, the Commission has not taken a decision to change the policy. The Commission's transgender policy involves changes to its staff handbook, which were in keeping with the settled legislative and legal position at the time and were approved by the senior management team. Therefore, no political parties were consulted then. As per the Assembly Commission's equality scheme, the consultation on the draft policy sought the views of those directly affected by it, including representatives of the section 75 categories, Assembly Commission staff and NIPSA.

On the question of whether the Commission will undertake to include MLAs who are not represented on the Commission in future consultations, those directly affected by a draft policy are reviewed prior to each of the consultation processes that take place.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

7. Ms Ferguson asked the Assembly Commission to outline any measures that it has taken to provide family- and carer-friendly working for Assembly staff. (AQO 2234/22-27)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for the question. The Assembly Commission recognises the importance of a family- and carer-friendly working environment, as it contributes to a healthier, more engaged and more productive workforce.

The Assembly Commission's employees can avail themselves of a number of policies, including a hybrid working policy that offers staff the opportunity to work from home where possible, carefully balanced against the realities of business need and the importance of colleagues being together for strong team dynamics. The balance between working in Parliament Buildings and working at home varies depending on the post held, business needs and the staff member's preference. The staff hours at work policy affords staff members the opportunity to accrue additional time worked that can be taken during recess or when business is quieter. The flexible working and partial retirement policy allows staff to adjust their working pattern either permanently or temporarily. The support for carers policy sets out the support available to staff with caring responsibilities. The special leave policy gives staff the statutory right to time off for the care of dependants. Although the statutory right is to unpaid time off, the Assembly Commission may, in certain circumstances, give staff a limited amount of paid time off work. In addition, the policy provides for non-statutory time off for domestic reasons. The parental leave policy enables an eligible staff member to take a set period of unpaid leave from work to care for a child. The shared parental leave policy sets out the rights of staff members to take shared parental leave. Finally, the annual leave policy makes provision for the carry-over of annual leave, which may assist staff who are aware that they will need a long period of annual leave during the following year for caring purposes.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his answer. The Member mentioned hybrid working: is hybrid working available to all staff, and what provisions are available for annual leave?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I am not sure which question to take. I will go for the first one, on hybrid working.

The balance between working in Parliament Buildings and working at home varies depending on the post, business need and the preference of the member of staff. Assembly staff carry out a wide range of varied roles, and staff in some business areas will be required to work up to and including 100% of their contracted hours in the week in Parliament Buildings. For other roles, consideration is given to up to 60% of contracted hours being worked from home. During recess periods, greater flexibility may be considered subject to business need.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

8. Mr Delargy asked the Assembly Commission to outline any mechanisms in place to assist people who are blind, partially sighted or hearing-impaired when visiting Parliament Buildings. (AQO 2235/22-27)

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. With your permission, Principal Deputy Speaker, I may need an extra minute for the answer.

People visit Parliament Buildings for a range of reasons, and the Assembly Commission is committed to providing an exemplary and accessible service for all our visitors in a manner that respects their dignity and independence and promotes equality of opportunity and choice. Our approach to accessible services has been developed in consultation with the Equality Commission and underlines our commitment to be an Assembly for everyone.

The Assembly website has comprehensive information about visiting Parliament Buildings in a variety of formats, including easy-read and video. The website also has contact details of staff who can assist visitors and answer any questions via telephone or email. We encourage visitors who have additional accessibility requirements to make advance contact with officials to discuss their individual needs. For people who are blind or partially sighted, a Braille tour guide provides information on Parliament Buildings and the Assembly and includes a tactile map of the spaces in Parliament Buildings. We also welcome assistance dogs to the Building.

Assembly information can be provided in alternative formats on request. Assembly Committees will make reasonable adjustments to allow people with disabilities to submit evidence in an alternative format, and the Gallery rules for attending Committees are provided in Braille.

For people who are deaf or hard of hearing, a signed tour in British Sign Language (BSL) and Irish Sign Language (ISL) is available on request. In the Assembly Chamber, we sign one Question Time each week in both BSL and ISL.

The Assembly also has an external disability advisory group that provides feedback and assistance on the accessibility of Parliament Buildings and the activities that take place within. Our engagement team is coordinating a Disabled People's Parliament to facilitate people with disabilities, including those with visual or hearing impairments. The Parliament is due to take place in November of this year.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Member for her comprehensive answer. She has answered a lot of my supplementary question as well. There is a lot in there for individuals, but can she provide clarity on whether there is an option for adapted tours for groups?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. Groups that have specific requirements can make prior contact with the visitor experience team, and, if the required adaptations are possible, the team will facilitate them. If they are not immediately available, the team will explore other options to support the group in visiting Parliament Buildings. It is important that any member of the public who wishes to visit Parliament Buildings can do so regardless of whether they have a disability.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question 9 has been withdrawn.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

10. Mrs Dillon asked the Assembly Commission whether it intends to provide enhanced facilities in Parliament Buildings to promote a healthy lifestyle. (AQO 2237/22-27)

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

I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission is committed to promoting a healthy lifestyle and provides a number of schemes and initiatives in Parliament Buildings to do so.

Given the weather that we have had recently, it is also worth noting how fortunate we in the Building are to have access to the parkland outside to take in some exercise and fresh air before or after work or over lunchtime, which I am sure that many of us do.

The Assembly Commission has established a health and well-being group for staff. It is staff-led and encourages staff to take part in a variety of activities. Although there are constraints on providing additional facilities, given the nature of the Building and the available budget, the Assembly Commission is always open to considering new ideas and suggestions.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Can the Member confirm how many showers are located in Parliament Buildings? Are there any plans to increase the number of shower facilities?

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

I thank the Member for her question. Two showers are available for use. One is located on the fourth floor, near room 435. The other is on the third floor, beside room 386. At the moment, there are no plans to provide any extra shower facilities, but, should the level of use require that we consider increasing the number, we will do so.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

11. Ms Brownlee asked the Assembly Commission for an update on the Disability Discrimination Act audit on accessibility in Parliament Buildings. (AQO 2238/22-27)

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission engaged the Department of Finance to carry out a multifaceted listed building survey for Parliament Buildings, which included undertaking a disability access audit. The audit commenced on 26 March, and an initial report was received at the end of May. The final report is expected by the end of June. Assembly Commission officials are working with staff in the Department of Finance to determine next steps.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you for the update. I know that the report is not with us at the moment, but, a few weeks ago, I met a lady who was attending an event in the Long Gallery. The toilets just opposite the Members' tea room have three very heavy doors. She was in an electric wheelchair and therefore could not get in to use the facilities. I put that on the record, as it is definitely something that we need to look at.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Thank you for raising that issue. That is one of the real-life examples that we need to know about. As I say, we await the findings of the audit, but I can assure the Member that, once they are received, Assembly Commission officials will put together an action plan for us to consider. Access for all members of our community is important to the Commission, as it is to all MLAs. We will make sure that anything that is identified, including the example that you raised, will be actioned as part of the audit report.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

12. Miss Hargey asked the Assembly Commission to outline any plans to facilitate more car parking at Parliament Buildings for staff and visitors. (AQO 2239/22-27)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission currently has the use of four car parks in the vicinity of Parliament Buildings. They are the two upper car parks, located on either side of the main Building, with a third, which is referred to as the lower east, or visitors', car park, situated a short distance away from the main Building, in close proximity to the search facility. Finally, an overspill car park near the lower east car park is also readily accessible.

The Assembly Commission fully acknowledges the difficulties experienced with parking, particularly on sitting days. Although the Commission will continue to look at ways in which those difficulties might be eased, there are no immediate plans to increase the number of spaces available, as doing so is simply not possible, owing to the topography and the limited space in general around the Building. A number of parking spaces are currently unavailable as a result of the scaffolding at the rear of the Building, but that is a temporary situation that should hopefully be resolved by early 2026.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Thank you for the answer. I was going to ask whether the Commission is looking at providing additional parking permits for the upper car parks, but you have already answered me in some way, Trevor. You said that, because of the topography, there is no additional room there. Can that be looked at?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

There are currently no plans to do so. Some Members who have had the benefit of being here for a number of years will notice that work was done a number of years ago that got us additional parking spaces at the rear of the Building. Those spaces are no longer being utilised because of the works, but we will get them back in early 2026. Other than that, there are no plans to look at providing more parking spaces.

The number of visitors does say something about the success of the Building. Although Members are privileged to have spaces allocated to them and, indeed, to some of their support staff, it is unfortunate that some people have to travel a distance to enter the Building. There are no immediate plans to look at the situation any further, however.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

13. Ms Mulholland asked the Assembly Commission to outline any measures it is taking to make Parliament Buildings more energy efficient. (AQO 2240/22-27)

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. A wide range of energy efficiency measures have been implemented in Parliament Buildings to reduce energy consumption. They include the installation of additional metering systems to enable improved management of energy usage; the replacement of existing lighting with LED lighting in basement areas and corridors on the first, second, third and fourth floors as well as in offices on those floors; the installation of more energy-efficient LED external lighting around the Building; and the replacement of televisions in Parliament Buildings with more energy-efficient models. We work closely with the Department of Finance's energy management unit and other partners to ensure that effective measures are implemented to improve the energy efficiency and carbon footprint of Parliament Buildings wherever possible.

The Commission is also committed to sustainable development, including efforts to improve the energy efficiency of Parliament Buildings. In line with that commitment, the Commission first achieved accreditation to the environmental management International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard in September 2011. That accreditation was successfully retained in 2017 and has been retained each year since. To maintain the certification, the Commission must identify environmental impacts, set clear targets and measure performance to demonstrate continuous improvement.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

We certainly need to drive down costs where we can. Has the Commission considered installing solar panels?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

In 2015, solar thermal tubes, photovoltaic (PV) panels and rainwater harvesting equipment were installed on the roof. We can certainly look into the effect that those are having, and hopefully we will continue to improve that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Nuala.

Mr Matthew O'Toole is not in his place, and question 15 —

[Interruption.]

Stop it, yousuns. Question 15 has been withdrawn. Members may take their ease until we change the top Table. Thank you.

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

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go ahead, Matthew.

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

I want to apologise because I was not in the Chamber to ask my question to the Assembly Commission. Colleagues clearly moved more quickly than I had anticipated, so apologies for that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you for doing that. Questions to the Assembly Commission are very efficient. That is a warning to the rest of us. Unlike some Ministers who only get to question 5, the Assembly Commission members got right through their questions, so well done.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)