Northern Ireland Assembly, 19 May 2026

399 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members, before we start today's business, I will return to Matthew O'Toole's point of order about remarks by Timothy Gaston about the Irish Language Commissioner during Members' statements yesterday. I will deal with the matter relatively quickly. Members are fully entitled in the House to scrutinise and be critical of the actions and decisions of public bodies such as the Office of the Irish Language Commissioner and to do so robustly. Members know that I am a keen defender of freedom of expression in the House, but I have always been clear that gratuitous personal insults are a different matter. I advise Members that references to Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust outside of a specific or historical context are not likely to be helpful to constructive debate.

The principles of debate that I issued in June last year made it clear that Members may sometimes get carried away in the heat of debate. When someone draws a Member's attention to the fact that they have found something that has been said offensive or distasteful, that Member should be prepared to reflect on and respond to that perspective, even at a later point. I have made clear the view of the Chair on the terms used yesterday. I hope that that is now clear to the Member concerned and, indeed, all Members.

Members' Statements

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I received a response from the new chief executive officer of the Western Health and Social Care Trust about the ongoing absence of emergency general surgery at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH). Let me be clear that people in Fermanagh and west Tyrone are not reassured. They are frustrated and angry and feel deeply let down. We are now more than three years on from the so-called temporary suspension of emergency general surgery at the SWAH in December 2022. What was presented as a short-term patient safety measure has become a prolonged withdrawal of a critical, life-saving service.

Patient safety must always come first, of course, but statistics alone do not tell the full story. They do not reflect the distress of families who are forced to travel long distances in emergency situations, the growing pressure on our Ambulance Service and the deepening sense of inequality that the people whom I represent feel.

What is equally concerning is the continued absence of any clear, time-bound pathway.

We are told by the Western Trust that responsibility lies with the Department of Health and the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG). However, we are told by the Department that responsibility lies with the Western Trust. We are told that no strategic outline case has been commissioned, and no timeline can be provided. In other words, there is no plan, timeline or accountability.

It is also deeply frustrating that the Health Minister has yet to respond to my priority question for written answer, which is now seven days overdue. That delay only adds to the lack of clarity, responsibility and urgency surrounding the issue. Let me say this clearly: my constituents and their lives are not a political football. I acknowledge the work under way on a wider vision for Health and Social Care, but a vision without delivery risks becoming little more than words on a page.

What is needed now is decisive action. I call on the Health Minister, the Department of Health and the SPPG to urgently provide clarity on commissioning intent, to outline a clear pathway for the restoration of emergency general surgery at the SWAH and to set out a realistic timeline for delivery.

My constituents and I deserve equitable access to life-saving services. We deserve certainty, and we deserve better than this.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Many parents awoke this morning to messages on social media that related to a threat to schools in my constituency of South Antrim. It is a very sinister threat: the individual who made it has decided that they do not want to be on this earth any more. Indeed, if that is the case, I wish them a speedy journey. Of course, the email has caused serious concerns in our community because threats involving bombs, knives and guns are all referred to in the message.

I was contacted by the police early this morning, and, to be fair to them, they have reassured the schools. I spoke to school leaders this morning as well. Whilst we hope that this is a hoax, the principals are treating the threat seriously and are trying to reassure parents that their schools will be safe places and that whatever the schools can do, over and above what they do during the normal working day to keep our children safe, they will do.

The message was sent by email to each of the schools in the area. The police are investigating the matter. I hope that they come to a speedy conclusion, identify the individual or individuals concerned and bring them to speedy justice through the courts.

A lot of concerned parents have made the decision to remove their children from school. Children are precious to us all, and to threaten them is one of the most depraved acts that any individual can do. However, the person or persons responsible for this have got the reaction that they wanted. They have achieved social media notoriety from the threat. Indeed, they have singled out a house in Antrim and signed off the email from an individual at that address, thus bringing attention to an individual in the Antrim area.

I hope that the police are swift in bringing this person to justice. Of course, if that person wants this to be their last day on earth, I hope that they make that swift as well.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Today is World Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Day, and I want to speak about my constituent Mark. I have known him for quite some time, and he has campaigned about IBD issues in Northern Ireland for almost 20 years.

For Mark and thousands of others, IBD is not something that you can fix by popping a pill from the medicine cabinet. It is not just a dodgy tummy or a bout of diarrhoea. It shapes your entire day and night: whether you can leave the house, work, sleep, feel safe going somewhere new or will be believed when you say that you are ill.

Mark told me about running to the bathroom 30 or 40 times a day. He talked about the lifelong cycle of appointments, medication, tests and colonoscopies. He talked about the impact beyond his bowel: liver disease, arthritis, eye problems, mouth ulcers, skin problems, weak teeth, osteoporosis, constant pain and the effects of losing blood over and over again. That is a lot for one person to carry, and it is made so much harder because so much of it is hidden. The general public simply do not see the fatigue. Mark described it as being not just tired but completely exhausted while not being able to sleep because of pain or having to go back and forward to the bathroom through the night. They do not see the fear of a flare starting and not being able to get help quickly enough. There is simply no respite.

Sadly, Mark's story is not unusual. A report by IBD UK found that more than 17,000 people in Northern Ireland live with Crohn's disease or colitis — around one in 114 people. It also shows how timely care matters. Some 50% of people waited more than four weeks, after speaking to a primary care practitioner, to be referred to a specialist.

Our constituents are needlessly sitting at home — bent double in pain, wrapped around a toilet, bleeding, exhausted, frightened — and waiting. When a flare starts, quick support can make the difference between managing it at home and ending up in crisis.

Mark also raised with me the lack of psychological support linked to IBD clinics. The IBD standards recognise that patients should be assessed for mental health, fatigue and other symptoms beyond the gut, yet only 19% of people with IBD in Northern Ireland said that they had been asked about their mental health.

IBD is a hidden and fluctuating disability. Mark has been challenged for using accessible toilets and a blue badge, because he does not look disabled, which my father, who, for most of my life, had Crohn's disease and a colostomy also experienced. That lack of understanding can follow people into the personal independence payment (PIP) system, where scoring often fails to capture urgent toilet needs, pain, fatigue, blood loss, side effects and the fear of leaving the house. People who are already exhausted by illness should not have to keep proving that they are struggling.

On IBD day, I thank Mark not just for sharing his story with me but for always showing up and fighting to use his experience to make things better for others.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Violence against our teachers has been described to me by those who work in schools as a taboo issue. It is one that we do not want to talk about or to address but that happens in schools day in, day out. I asked the Education Authority how many teachers were assaulted last year: the figures were 598 teachers and 1,974 classroom assistants. That is 2,500 people who work in our education establishments.

When we talk about violence against women, we do not talk about the violence in our schools, but the vast majority of the people who are injured and assaulted there are female. Sometimes — I do not want to stigmatise anyone — the violence is to do with special educational needs pupils and is not an assault but about someone who is dysregulated, but, often, teachers and classroom assistants do not have the training and support that they need to manage difficult situations. However, there is a culture in schools of some pupils simply being unruly and abusive and engaging in intimidation of our teachers and classroom assistants, which is an entirely different thing. Those staff need to hear that they have our full support. I worry about the Alliance proposal to change the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14. That would make things such as bullying, assaults and even upskirting or downblousing by anyone who is under 14 legal in our country, which would be very damaging.

There is a wider culture here. I ask the Education Minister — I have written to him about it — to put in place an injury reduction plan for our schools and make sure that schools are empowered to deal swiftly with pupils who are disruptive. Such pupils disrupt the vast majority, who are well behaved. I will say things that other people do not want to say, such as that, while the vast majority of parents are good people who do the right thing, teachers have experience of parents who abuse them; when the parent's son or daughter is told off, teachers get abuse rather than support.

We have to deal with these issues, because we have men and women — mostly women — who go to school to do their level best and work hard. When I visit a classroom and am suddenly told that a teacher next door has just been concussed or I speak to teachers with broken ribs or other broken bones, I will speak up for them, because they do not feel that they get the support that they need. The issue should be given more publicity and attention. We need to support our teachers, pupils and parents so that we have schools that are safe for everybody.

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

In the past few minutes, we have heard important contributions on a range of topics that are relevant to individual constituencies and important for our constituents. There is nothing wrong with that, but what we should be talking about today and every day until a Budget is agreed is the absence of that Budget.

Sometimes, this strange place operates like a parallel universe. Whenever people talk about things such as funding emergency surgery at the South West Acute Hospital, which my party strongly agrees with, or all the other things that we will talk about today, we have to be clear that, when we do not set a Budget and we shirk responsibility for governing this place despite taking our seats and accepting our salaries, which, in the case of Ministers, means accepting a generous salary, having hundreds of civil servants working for them and a ministerial car, we profoundly fail the public of Northern Ireland. We should not wonder why they have such contempt for us.

We are nearly two months into the financial year, which means that the Northern Ireland Executive has been breaking the law for nearly two months. That is right: breaking the law. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is clear that a Budget must be set by the beginning of the financial year, which is 1 April. None has been set. The excuse given by the Finance Minister and his colleagues in the DUP and other Executive parties is that they are negotiating with the UK Government for more money. To be clear, despite the slurs from the Finance Minister, the Opposition want this place to get more money. We accept that the devolved finance settlement is broken, but it is utterly unacceptable to hold the people of the North and their public services to ransom for their failure to take leadership. We are told that a negotiation is going on, but where is it? I see no evidence of it. There has been no ministerial statement to tell us when the Budget will be debated, and not one Member from an Executive party has stood up to raise the issue. I do not know where the negotiation is.

We can see the political chaos in London. We are told repeatedly about how the British Government do not fund this place properly — I accept that— and that they do not pay attention to us or care about us. All those things are true. Why, then, should we not take responsibility for passing a Budget ourselves, rather than forcing challenges onto the people by not setting a Budget? Things will get worse if we do not set a Budget, even if we accept that the financial settlement is not enough. I see Members laughing, giggling and turning away at me saying this. It is utterly unacceptable. It is shameful that we are in this situation.

If London has not given us enough money — I would like to see more — we are failing community and voluntary services by not taking responsibility, because things will get worse. The Finance Minister has written to permanent secretaries to say that they can spend only 90%-odd of their budget. Yesterday, the Communities Minister said that domestic violence funding was at risk. Last week, the deputy First Minister said that community relations funding —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

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

— was at risk. Let us do our jobs.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Declan Kearney.

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

There is nonsense in this place. Set a Budget.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Kearney.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Rinne Palaistínigh ar fud an domhain an Nakba a chomóradh Dé Aoine seo a chuaigh thart. Is "Nakba" an focal Araibise ar "thubaiste". Is mar sin a chuireann na Palaistínigh síos ar an ghlanadh eitneach a rinneadh orthu óna dtír féin sa bhliain 1948. Sa tréimhse sin cuireadh níos mó ná 750,000 duine as seilbh agus maraíodh níos mó ná 15,000 Palaistíneach. Baintear úsáid as an fhocal Nakba inniu le cur síos ar an díláithriú agus ar an ghéarleanúint atáthar a dhéanamh ar mhuintir na Palaistíne faoi láthair. Ó bunaíodh stát Iosrael sa bhliain 1948, tá lonnaíochtaí mídhleathacha Iosraelacha á leathnú gan stad gan staonadh ar an Bhruach Thiar. Tá Gaza scriosta, agus tá a mhuintir faoi chinedhíothú agus faoi ghlanadh eitneach leanúnach.

Go spreaga comóradh seo an Nakba an pobal idirnáisiúnta é féin a eagrú i gcoinne coireanna Iosrael in aghaidh na daonnachta. Ná cuirimis fiacail ann. Tá forghabháil Iosrael agus a ghníomhartha ag sárú an dlí idirnáisiúnta. D’eisigh an Chúirt Choiriúil Idirnáisiúnta barántais ghabhála ar Benjamin Netanyahu agus ar dhaoine eile ag cur coireanna cogaidh agus coireanna in aghaidh na daonnachta ina leith. Thoiligh an tAontas Eorpach an tseachtain seo a chuaigh thart smachtbhannaí a chur ar lonnaitheoirí mídhleathacha i ndiaidh blianta de bhrú ón phobal agus ó pholaiteoirí. Ach caithfidh an tAontas Eorpach níos mó a dhéanamh. Caithfidh sé Iosrael a leithlisiú go hiomlán. Caithfear trádbhaic arm a chur i bhfeidhm. Ba cheart deireadh a chur leis an chomhaontú comhlachais idir an tAontas Eorpach agus Iosrael. Tá sé thar am baghcat, dífheistiú agus smachtbhannaí cuimsitheacha a chur i bhfeidhm.

[Translation: Last Friday, Palestinians across the world commemorated the Nakba. “Nakba” is the Arabic word for “catastrophe”. It is how Palestinians describe the ethnic cleansing of their country in 1948. This is the period when more than 750,000 people were driven from their homes and over 15,000 Palestinians were killed. Today, Nakba also describes the ongoing displacement and persecution of the Palestinian people. Since the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948, the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank has been relentless. Gaza has been destroyed, and its people are being subjected to genocide and continued ethnic cleansing. This Nakba anniversary should be another urgent call to action for the international community to organise against Israel’s crimes against humanity. There must be no equivocation. Israel’s occupation and actions are violations of international law. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and others to answer charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Last week, the European Union agreed to impose sanctions on illegal Israeli settlers following years of public and political pressure. However, the EU must now go further. It must fully isolate Israel. Arms embargoes must be applied. The EU-Israel association agreement should be terminated. It is past time for comprehensive boycott, divestment and sanctions to be enforced.]

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

It is not unusual to hear politicians bash the BBC, and perhaps that is especially so on these Benches, but, credit where it is due, in the past couple of weeks, it has done a fair bit to shine a light on the realities of the conveyor belt of small boats coming to the UK and on the division and resentment that illegal immigration causes in our communities, as it does south of the border in the Republic of Ireland, which is not immune.

In the recent podcast 'Intrigue: To Catch a King', the podcasters, while seeking to find a person sought by their family in the Kurdish regions of northern Iraq, tracked "Kardo Ranya", an alias used by a kingpin at the top of multiple trafficking networks. We saw more such networks in this week's documentary, 'The Smuggling Business: Undercover', as they trafficked people across multiple safe countries, offering their customers a menu of illicit and dangerous routes across Europe and, ultimately, on to their small boats or into shipping containers across the English Channel. We saw competing gangs at the lawless "Jungle" camp near Calais, where shootings and stabbings were reported apparently for non-payment and traffickers boasted of the thousands whom they had helped to illegally invade British shores. On one day of filming, 600 crossed the channel, representing another £700,000 for the £7 billion-a-year trafficking industry. They offered a range of places and ways to pay and an international list of outlets in Afghanistan, France and Belgium, as well as a car wash in Cambridgeshire, a Newcastle upon Tyne wholesaler and a mobile phone shop in Woolwich.

Yesterday, some in the Assembly sought to raise the spectre of parties who want to confront immigration head-on, as though UK voters are the danger. At Westminster, we have a Labour Government who are less focused on the country and more focused on their own psychodrama, another flailing Prime Minister who has failed to secure our borders or stop the boats, and a would-be Prime Minister in Andy Burnham, who, in a recent interview, said that Reform's rise is because things have got too expensive.

If you ever wonder why the traditional parties of government in the UK face such challenges, consider how hesitant some have been to talk about the issue that they know is foremost in the minds of their working-class communities. Illegal immigration is the issue that dare not speak its name. It is organised crime, and modern-day slavers are running a deadly ferry service for those who would abuse our asylum system. We are a final destination: a catastrophe for those who are trafficked, our communities and our public services, which are left to deal with the consequences. Others may hide from drawing attention to it and its corrosive impact on our communities, but this party will not. Credit, for once, to the media for exposing that brutal trade, even if some in the Chamber would prefer that it was not talked about.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Today, I will chair the Assembly's all-party group on cancer. We will receive a presentation from the Northern Ireland Cancer Network and will examine the issues behind some of the most harrowing cancer statistics in Northern Ireland. I would like to share with the House some of those statistics and the work and concerns of some of the key charities working with cancer patients in Northern Ireland.

The evidence in Northern Ireland tells us that cancer cases have reached their highest level on record, with some 10,700 people diagnosed each year. That means that 29 people a day are diagnosed with cancer in Northern Ireland, which is a sobering thought. Incidence rates have risen 14% since the 1990s, partly driven by preventable risk factors such as smoking and obesity. Patients in Northern Ireland face the longest waits for cancer diagnosis and treatment of any nation in the United Kingdom. In 2025, only 31% of patients began treatment within 62 days of a red-flag referral, compared with 83% in 2013. Smoking continues to cause 1,500 cancer cases each year in Northern Ireland. Rolling out targeted lung screening could help us to diagnose an additional 210 patients at an early stage.

Based on the evidence, we call on the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver an urgent plan to reduce the longest cancer waiting times in the UK and ensure that patients are diagnosed and treated without delay; prevent more cancers by implementing tobacco and vapes legislation; renew commitments to diagnosing cancers early, including the roll-out of targeted lung cancer screening and improved access to primary care; and strengthen cancer research by supporting the conditions needed for global talent innovation and long-term investment in life sciences. Behind every statistic is a person whose life changes the moment they hear the words, "You have cancer". Ensuring timely, quality care for every patient in Northern Ireland must be a priority.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I rise to talk about a local issue relating to Maydown Road, Benburb, and the bridge there that has collapsed, cutting off rural communities. The bridge collapsed seven months ago. That causes difficulties in a rural community; it is difficult for communities to go about their normal daily life. The bridge collapsed due to damage during storm Amy. It is disgraceful that we are still sitting here seven months on, and the shifting timelines from Roads Service have not helped the community. Communities are suffering, as are the businesses in the Benburb area. A local shop has reported to me that its downturn is about 20%, and a local pub has reported that its downturn is between 40% and 50%. That is huge. Local businesses, particularly in rural communities, where things are difficult enough, face a perfect storm and are hurting and struggling to keep open, so it is shameful that the bridge has still not been fixed.

There has also been a lack of communication with the community and, may I add, public representatives. Timely communication would enable us to get information to our constituents. When I was in touch with DFI a number of months ago, for example, it said that it was ahead of schedule. Now, we see shifting timescales. The road was to reopen on 10 April, but nobody seemed to know whether that was going to be the case. April 10 has come and gone, and now it is saying that it will be late May. We are only a matter of days away from late May, and we still have no clarity on when the bridge will open.

The shifting timelines are shameful. It is not good enough. We need to see action from the Economy Minister and the Infrastructure Minister, working together, to support rural communities and to provide businesses with support. When such incidents happen, our businesses and rural communities struggle, but there is no support for them. It is important that we get clarity, communication and support for our rural communities, who suffer as a result of the impact of such events.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

This morning, I am going in to bat again for our childminders, who are feeling increasingly ignored by Departments that are making significant decisions that are so ill considered that they threaten the viability of the sector. In Westminster, the Treasury's proposal to remove the 10% wear-and-tear allowance will create upfront expenditure and an administrative burden that will drive many childminders out of the sector. Locally, we have the Health Minister announcing long-awaited changes to minimum standards, which include ratios for childminders. Childminders have told me that, in practical terms, the proposed changes will reduce the number of children under 18 months whom a childminder is permitted to care for. That will have a real impact, because the demand from families who are trying to get childcare relates to children under school age, and those changes will not help with that. The changes have also introduced caveats around siblings, leaving people confused as to the evidence base and logic behind the decisions. There appear to be no changes for those employing childminding assistants, and there remain significant barriers, such as having to go through the planning process or trying to get appropriate transport, if a childminder wants to take on the maximum number of eight children.

Following engagement with the Northern Ireland Childminding Association (NICMA), I know that the Health Department has already conceded that the implementation date of June needs to be pushed back to November. June was never a feasible timeline, given that childminders had flagged that they would have to end or change contracts with parents on the basis of the changes. What did the Department expect those parents to do? Getting new childcare places, especially in rural areas, is not easy. We need childminders now more than ever, and they are not feeling that. Policy decisions taken without impact assessments or a robust evidence base undermine confidence. The Minister and officials must listen to the needs of the sector and course correct urgently. If we want a sustainable childcare sector, the professionals who are in it need to be respected and listened to.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Gordon Lyons has failed to bring forward an Irish language strategy. The DUP is attempting to gaslight people, but the evidence of its hostility and disrespect is clear for everyone to see, including right now. The DUP Minister for Communities is responsible for bringing forward an Irish language strategy, but he has offered nothing but excuses. Instead, we have from the DUP the crocodile comments, opposition to Acht na Gaeilge

[Translation: the Irish language Act]

, its disgraceful Líofa moment and the blocking of additional funding through the North/South bodies.

Gordon Lyons has opposed the Irish language at every turn and squandered public funds in becoming embroiled in multiple court cases. He has failed to protect the Place-Name Project. Why did he order the removal of trilingual branding from his Department? It was because the DUP Minister, under the direction of the deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, is all about delaying, frustrating, blocking and deflecting. The DUP's actions speak louder than its words, and it is on the wrong side again.

Sinn Féin is clear: no further DUP delay. The Minister for Communities should bring forward an Irish language strategy now.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I highlight yet another failure of the Department for Infrastructure under successive Sinn Féin Ministers, which is the lack of maintenance of grass verges across Northern Ireland.

In 2023, former Minister O'Dowd changed the policy to a single swathe of grass cutting and approximately 1·2 metres of cuts only twice a year, leaving many sight lines greatly restricted at key junctions across Northern Ireland. That compromises the important road safety messaging coming from the Department. The 1-metre strips also apply in many residential areas, and I see that in my constituency of North Down and across Northern Ireland. It is a reflection of the failure of the Department for Infrastructure to get basic maintenance right. We see that every day on our roads, and we see it with maintenance of grass verges. I therefore call on the Minister urgently to review the policy that was announced with great fanfare by then Minister O'Dowd back in late 2022 and introduced in 2023 and get our basic road infrastructure right.

Matter of the Day

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Jon Burrows has been given leave to make a statement on the High Court ruling that the former Police Ombudsman acted ultra vires and on the implications of the ruling for legacy. It fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Yesterday's judgement at the High Court was a withering indictment of the Office of the Police Ombudsman and of the competence, integrity and fairness of its previous officeholder, Ms Marie Anderson.

The ombudsman's job is to investigate, not to adjudicate. It is to look at a complaint or allegation and send a file of evidence to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), but, no, not Ms Anderson when it comes to how we treat the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The ombudsman became judge, jury and executioner. Despite her sending files of "evidence", the PPS consistently said that there was nothing to see here. The ombudsman still found a definitive judgement of guilt, however, branding the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as being involved in collusive behaviour. Yesterday, the judge said that she had acted beyond her powers and that a disclaimer had to go on every one of those reports.

History is being rewritten in front of our eyes by the men who now look at me. I look at Mr Kelly, who was a terrorist, and I say this: every terrorist, loyalist or republican, was wrong. Any who wore a uniform and did something wrong — there were few: very, very few — should be held to account, but we have turned the microscope the wrong way round. Some 99% of cases are looking at the law-abiding forces of law and order, who are subjected to endless inquiries, yet loyalists and republicans, who blew people to smithereens, have statues of them erected without planning permission. Such statues remain, and the "First Minister for all" dares to go to the unveilings.

In 1890, Rudyard Kipling put it well when describing how this country treats those who put on a uniform and serve:

"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!' But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot".

When the guns began to shoot, those men and women put on the uniform and tackled those who put on a balaclava. They did not disappear people like your organisation did, Mr Kelly. They did not have kangaroo courts or drill into people's knees. They did not lay people down naked at the border with a bag over their head. They did not tar and feather women. They did not tell people that they could not report rapes and sexual assaults. It was the Provisional IRA that did that, yet, somehow, we have ended up in a situation where men and women who served with honour are worried about a knock on the door and being smeared as having engaged in collusive behaviour. It is shameful.

Marie Anderson's conduct was shameful. Yesterday was a good day for the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association (NIRPOA). I pay tribute to that organisation.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

It is no surprise where the Member is coming from, given his history, but to deny that there was collusion is completely erroneous. As he said, Mr Justice Scoffield said that the reports should not be withdrawn and should stand but should state that the ombudsman had exceeded her powers. OK, but let us be honest here.

Of course, the Member is not being honest: everybody knows that there was collusion. There were debates at the time about whether to call it "collusion" or "collusive behaviour", and it was changed to "collusive behaviour". Call it what you will, there was collusion. It was systemic and state forces — certainly sections of those state forces, including the RUC and Special Branch — were involved in it. That is why the British Government are so intent on doing away with families' and victims' rights. They are trying to do away with the right to inquests. Some people have waited up to five decades for that. If you want to talk about people's rights, let us talk about that. They complain about reinvestigations being in breach of human rights when the other investigations did not fall within human rights legislation. They are against public inquiries. They are against article 2 investigations, as I said. Of course, the Stormont House Agreement of 2014 was agreed by the two Governments and all the parties, including, by the way, the party opposite, which then walked away from that agreement because, in the end, when they saw that it would be fair and equitable, it was not good enough. They did not want anybody who had been in state forces to be brought before the courts.

I will just say that 25,000 people went through jail. Let us not talk as if nothing ever happened. I could almost tell you the names of any members of state forces who ended up in jail, all of whom were there for a short time.

Returning to collusion and collusive behaviour, let us use the example of the Sean Brown case. The British Government are also against public inquiries. They do not want a inquiry into that case, because at least 25 loyalists were involved and collusion was clearly there. Let us talk about Pat Finucane. It was agreed that there would be a public inquiry into Pat Finucane's case. I was there when it was said by the Prime Ministers of the two Governments in 2001. It has taken from then until now even to be able to have an inquiry into that. Let us deal with the reports that have already been done on that. We now know that over 100 of those who were questioned were working with the state and were in a loyalist organisation, particularly the UDA. Let us not get on our high horse when it comes to this issue.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome yesterday's High Court ruling that the Police Ombudsman's public statements alleging collusive behaviour by RUC officers must now carry a formal notice warning that the ombudsman exceeded her legal powers. In the eyes of many in the police family, as well as in the wider unionist community, the Office of the Police Ombudsman has become an agent — a vehicle, as it were — for the rewriting of the history of the Troubles. That may be uncomfortable for the Justice Minister, but, for those whom I represent, it is the hard, cold reality.

Rebuilding trust and commanding public confidence will be no easy task. It was not and is not the role of the Police Ombudsman to brand former police officers as being guilty of collusion, collusive behaviours or any politically conceived offence without those officers being afforded proper due process. The Police Ombudsman, the Coroners Service or anyone else should not be able to make sweeping allegations of misconduct against those who stood in the gap against a brutal terrorist campaign, all the while ignoring the context of that period and the immense operational and resourcing challenges that the RUC were up against daily.

There is a challenge for the Chief Constable in all of this too. What message does it send to those who serve in 2026 that the PSNI is content to dish out compensation in legacy cases on the basis of discredited Police Ombudsman findings of collusion? Where is the regard for the rule of law or the burden of proof? Where is the concern for the public purse?

Yesterday's ruling must be seen as a step change in how the ombudsman and the wider criminal justice system treat our ex-service personnel. The DUP will never consent to the airbrushing of history for political expediency. The memory and contribution of those personnel will never be forgotten.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Yesterday was another sad indictment of how we fail to deal with our past in Northern Ireland. We litigate issues over and over again but fail to bring justice for many of our victims and survivors. Yesterday's judgement was not about whether collusion existed during the Troubles: if you believe that it did not, you need a reality check. It was about not being able or allowed to make sweeping statements on every officer who served in the RUC. It is perfectly acceptable and right to say that the ombudsman's office must act within its powers, and we have to be clear on that. I am sure that the ombudsman's office will — it should — reflect on yesterday's judgement.

I also want to be clear that yesterday's judgement should not detract from the current procedures and investigations that are under way by the ombudsman's team. We need to allow the office, particularly the new chief executive, the space to investigate all cases that are referred and all complaints that are made to it. It is important that we give the office space and time to reflect on yesterday's judgement. We need to properly deal with our past so that, a decade from today, we are not still litigating the same issues over and over again.

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

The ruling will land heavily with many families across our communities, especially those who lost loved ones during the conflict and have spent years trying to get answers. For many people, allegations of collusion are not political talking points or some sort of legal theory; they are tied directly to murders and grief and trauma that families still live with every day. The court has not said that the concerns raised by the ombudsman should disappear or be ignored; in fact, the reports remain published. However, the judge ruled that the ombudsman went beyond the legal powers available in some of the wording and conclusions that were used, and that clarification has now been attached. That is an important distinction.

We need to be careful that nobody turns the judgement into a victory lap, because families will certainly not see it that way. Families will still have deep questions about the role of elements of the state during the conflict, and those questions will not go away. At the same time, investigations and oversight bodies must operate properly, fairly and within the law. That is important if the public are to have confidence in those organisations.

More than anything, the victims and survivors want honesty and accountability. They want to know that no person and no organisation is beyond scrutiny. We need to remember that, every time that stories like this emerge, families are forced to relive enormous pain. We should speak about such matters with care and sensitivity. Ultimately, whatever people's political background, victims deserved better then and deserve better now.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Trevor Clarke is not here, so I call Timothy Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I welcome yesterday's ruling on the unlawful findings of collusive behaviour against former RUC officers.

For years, findings of that nature by the Police Ombudsman have been used to demonise and discredit the good name of a proud force that lost 319 officers to terrorists. Let us be clear: it is a scandal that should have seen Marie Anderson driven from office rather than permitted to see out her term. It showed how, under successive ombudsmen, the system was weaponised against a force that, through 30 years of terror, formed the thin green line between order and chaos. It was because the RUC was so effective in countering the terrorist threat that it became such a target.

Yesterday's ruling raises profound questions about how the Police Ombudsman's Office has allowed itself to be unlawfully weaponised by republicans and bombers such as Gerry Kelly and Pat Sheehan, who sit on the Sinn Féin Benches. Those men have the gall to stand up and lecture the House on human rights. No remorse; no shame. Terrorists is what they are.

It also raises profound questions for our national broadcaster, the BBC. The BBC reported extensively on the original discredited findings, but, yesterday, it completely ignored the fact that those same findings must now carry a notice that the watchdog exceeded its legal powers. Many will see that as merely par for the course for a broadcaster that has lost all credibility with the public. Many others, including me, see it as yet another reason why the licence fee must go and why there is a duty on unionism in the House to call out the terrorist acts of the bombers who sit on the Sinn Féin Benches.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The High Court ruling that the former Police Ombudsman, Marie Anderson, acted beyond her legal powers in making the claim and findings of collusive behaviour against the RUC is significant and welcome. However, let us be straight: it should never have happened in the first place. It is one of the most significant oversight bodies in Northern Ireland, weaponised and designed to deliver a vindictive smear against an organisation that served with distinction in Northern Ireland. I could not be more proud of the service of the thousands of RUC officers who, when cowardly terrorists were running away from planted bombs, ran towards them — those brave officers, men and women. Those brave men and women lifted the body parts of civilians off our streets. Those brave men and women evacuated children, men and women from their homes when they were being targeted by sectarian murder gangs. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those brave men and women. Yet how do we serve them as a country? With an ombudsman who was in place to join in with the rewriting of the narrative of the past.

Sinn Féin could absolutely paper the walls of this place with its calls for accountability when it comes to the RUC and, indeed, the British Army, but there were no such calls for accountability and action upon the murderous actions of its sister organisation, the Provisional IRA. Some 1,700 men, women and children were killed by that organisation. The First Minister for all says that there was no alternative: no alternative to the Enniskillen bombing, no alternative to other IRA atrocities. Marie Anderson used her role to discredit the RUC. In the findings yesterday, it is her role that has been discredited. It is the role of the ombudsman that has been discredited for vindictive, partisan actions. It should perhaps come as no surprise because we recently found out that Marie Anderson did not even pass the vetting test to be in the office.

The role of the Police Ombudsman is of significant importance. I hope that the House will bear that in mind when it comes to the appointment of any subsequent ombudsman, who must hold that role with fairness and transparency and ensure that it is about truth.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

It gives none of us any pleasure to listen to what has happened with the Police Ombudsman. The Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland was set up to be part of the checks, balances and controls that are appropriate for the governance of the Police Service in Northern Ireland. It was set up to be objective and impartial and to use the best practices that are available.

There were already considerable concerns about the Police Ombudsman. As other Members pointed out, there were issues around vetting and other significant issues with the people who held that post. One of the most significant issues and concerns that we must have is that, from now on, we will look at a comment on every comment about collusion, which basically says that they should be taken with a pinch of salt. That is what it says. Nowhere else in the UK or, indeed, abroad has the judiciary looked at a police ombudsman and found that such a comment has to be added to those comments. That must say something fundamental about the office and roles of the Police Ombudsman.

It is not, however, the first time that that has happened with unappointed quangos. We are fully aware of what has happened with the Northern Ireland human rights quangos. The Equality Commission had to be pulled in by the Supreme Court. Now, another court has had to pull in the Police Ombudsman. The reason for that is that their actions have been proven to be unlawful or unsuitable when it comes to whatever they are trying to deliver. The key to that is very clear: we must have principles of governance, objectivity, fairness and impartiality so that organisations stay within the strict guidelines that they are given. They should not be allowed to be activists or to roll off the reservation, which they seem to be doing. They seem to have a remarkable ability to find trouble where there is none. In fact, that has undermined confidence in how we deliver in Northern Ireland. That is not acceptable.

This is the question for all those unappointed people: who guards the guardians? As Members of the Assembly, we need to think clearly about that question. If they cannot guard themselves and we have to rely on the judiciary, we have to ask ourselves why we give them permission to do that, because, quite frankly, they are not up to the job.

Assembly Business

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

As the Minister of Education is unavailable, junior Minister Bunting will move the First Stage of the Bill.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to introduce the Education Inspections Bill [NIA Bill 34/22-27], which is a Bill to amend the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 with respect to inspections of schools, colleges and certain other providers of education.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call junior Minister Aisling Reilly to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Moved. — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, the Executive Office).]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 24, which deal with group 1: "Truth Recovery Public Inquiry". The second debate will be on amendment Nos 25 to 34 and amendment Nos 44 to 46, which deal with group 2: "Truth Recovery Redress Service: Entitlement to payment and amount to be paid". The third debate will be on amendment Nos 35 to 43 and amendment Nos 47 to 63, which deal with group 3: "Truth Recovery Redress Service: Applications procedure, supplementary provision and consequential amendments".

I remind Members that a number of the amendments that have been tabled are mutually exclusive or are consequential to one another. Specifically, amendment No 5 leaves out "assessors" and inserts "expert advisers" in relation to a truth recovery public inquiry and amendment Nos 6, 7, 18, 19, 23 and 24 are linked to that amendment.

Amendment Nos 20 and 21, which amend clause 26, "Time limit for applying for judicial review" in relation to a public inquiry, are mutually exclusive. Amendment Nos 25 and 28 are paving amendments for amendment No 29, which amends the eligibility criteria for redress payments. Amendment Nos 31 and 32, which change the amount paid to survivors of relevant institutions, are mutually exclusive.

Amendment No 39 inserts a new subsection into clause 39, and amendment No 40 is consequential to that amendment. Amendment Nos 47 to 63 are linked; those are technical amendments and reflect changes in benefit legislation since the Bill was introduced.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debates on the three groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each of the groups on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Question on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Terms of reference)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 24.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 2, line 4, at end insert—

"(1A) The terms of reference must be published no later than six months after the coming into operation of this Part.".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 2, line 30, at end insert—

"(6) In subsection (2), ‘other persons’ includes but is not limited to private hospitals, private maternity homes and private nursing homes; general practitioners; social workers; clergy; and private businesses.". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

No 3: In clause 4, page 3, line 16. at end insert—

"(ia) a woman or girl who had become pregnant while she was under the care of the workhouse;". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

No 4: In clause 5, page 3, line 35, leave out from "either" to end of line 36. — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

No 5: In clause 9, page 6, line 8, leave out "assessors" and insert "expert advisers". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

No 6: In clause 9, page 6, line 10, leave out "assessor" and insert "expert adviser". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

No 7: In clause 9, page 6, line 14, leave out "assessor" and insert "expert adviser". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

No 8: In clause 10, page 6, line 16, after "chairperson" insert ", having consulted the other members of the inquiry panel,". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

No 9: In clause 11, page 7, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

"(6) Where the First Minister and deputy First Minister give a notice under subsection (1), they must make an oral statement to the Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable.". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

No 10: After clause 12 insert—

"Contributions to payments

12A.—(1) The Department must publish a report on a scheme to seek financial contributions from any prescribed institution, public body or other person in relation to which the inquiry determines that there were any systemic failings such as referred to in section 2(2)(a) or (c).

(2) For the purposes of this section, “financial contributions” means contributions towards the funding of any statutory scheme for the making of payments in connection with admission to, or treatment by, institutions, bodies or persons.

(3) Where a charity makes a financial contribution, the making of that contribution is to be treated for all purposes as—

a) being in furtherance of the charity’s charitable purposes and consistent with its constitution,

(b) providing public benefit,

(c) not being contrary to the interests of the charity, and

(d) being within the powers exercisable by the charity trustees of the charity.

(4) Expressions used in subsection (3) have the same meaning as in the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008.". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

No 11: In clause 15, page 9, line 18, at end insert—

"(e) the extent to which any restrictions might impede the participation of relevant persons in the inquiry.". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

No 12: In clause 16, page 10, line 34, at end insert—

"(8A) The chairperson must take all reasonable steps to obtain documents or other things from persons, bodies or public authorities outside Northern Ireland where such information appears to be materially relevant to the matters under investigation.". — [Mr Carroll.]

No 13: In clause 16, page 10, line 34, at end insert—

"(8A) The Executive Office must take all reasonable steps to facilitate cooperation with the inquiry by persons, bodies or public authorities outside Northern Ireland, including His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.". — [Mr Carroll.]

No 14: In clause 16, page 10, line 34, at end insert—

‘(8A) Where evidence requested under this section is not provided, the inquiry must record and report—

(a) the nature of the evidence sought, and

(b) the person, body or public authority from whom it was sought.". — [Mr Carroll.]

No 15: In clause 18, page 11, line 18, leave out "a report" and insert "one or more reports". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

No 16: In clause 19, page 12, line 2, at end insert—

"(5A) Notwithstanding section 5, the chairperson may order publication of a report under section 18 at any time, where the chairperson considers that to be in the public interest.". — [Mr Carroll.]

No 17: In clause 20, page 12, line 8, leave out from "either" to end of line 9. — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

No 18: In clause 22, page 12, line 31, leave out "assessor" and insert "expert adviser". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

No 19: In clause 25, page 14, line 24, leave out "assessor" and insert "expert adviser". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

No 20: In clause 26, page 15, line 3, leave out "14" and insert "21". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

No 21: In clause 26, page 15, line 3, leave out "14" and insert "28". — [Mr Carroll.]

No 22: In clause 27, page 15, line 23, at end insert—

"(2A) Rules under subsection (1)(a) must in particular make provision for the designation of persons as core participants, and for consequent arrangements, similar to provision in the Inquiry Rules 2006.". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

No 23: In clause 29, page 16, leave out line 7. — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

No 24: In clause 29, page 16, line 11, at end insert—

"'expert adviser' means an expert adviser appointed under section 9;". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I rise today as Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office to speak to the amendments from the Committee Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. The Consideration Stage of the Bill is a huge moment for victims and survivors, many of whom have waited decades for recognition of the harm and suffering that they endured. I welcome those who have come to Parliament Buildings today. At this point, I put on record the Committee's thanks to all those who responded to the call for evidence, whether in writing or to the Committee directly, through the online survey or through our engagement events. I also thank those victims and survivors who gave evidence to the Committee in person for their courage and honesty in engaging with Committee members on the Bill.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will briefly outline how the Committee undertook an extensive and trauma-informed approach throughout its scrutiny. The Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 16 June 2025 and was referred to the Committee for consideration after Second Stage on 25 June 2025. The Committee received 91 written submissions and received oral evidence from 24 organisations, alongside numerous detailed briefings from departmental officials. In addition, the Committee held stakeholder familiarisation events, round-table discussions and dedicated sessions for victims and survivors, supported by advocacy and well-being services.

The Committee tasked the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) with examining the processes that were undertaken by relevant Governments in response to historical institutional abuse in Scotland, England and Wales, including public inquiries and redress schemes. That helped the Committee to identify good practice, and draw on lessons learned, and it helped inform its consideration of the Bill. Members and Committee staff undertook trauma-informed approach training with the Safeguarding Board in order to implement a trauma-informed process and approach for victims and survivors throughout our considerations.

The Committee held three familiarisation sessions with stakeholders to outline the Committee Stage of the Bill ahead of our call for evidence. Committee staff also sought approval from WAVE, the Victims and Survivors Service and Adopt NI for all consultation material, including imagery and familiarisation session invitations, in order to ensure that the language and terminology that were used were appropriate and non-offensive to victims and survivors. The Committee also arranged round-table stakeholder events. Over the course of three sessions, the Committee hosted more than 90 individuals, demonstrating its commitment to hearing as many views as possible. The Committee unanimously supported the Bill in principle and used the Committee Stage to develop amendments that would strengthen transparency, enhance survivor involvement, improve accountability and ensure robust Assembly oversight.

With that summary of the process, I will move on to the Committee's amendments in group 1, which refer to the truth recovery public inquiry. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 relate to clause 2, which outlines how the terms of reference of the inquiry, including any amendments to them, will be prepared and published by the Executive Office after consultation with the chairperson of the inquiry. Members noted from the response to the call for evidence that there has been strong support for all actors — state, religious and private organisations — to be included in the terms of reference. The Committee agreed to seek two amendments to the clause. Amendment No 1 would require the terms of reference to be published no later than six months after Part 1 comes into operation. The amendment would prevent delay in establishing the scope of the inquiry. The Committee also considered provisions relating to other care arrangements under clause 2(2) that require the inquiry to determine whether there were systemic failings by institutions, public bodies or any other persons in certain circumstances. Amendment No 2 would ensure that the list is non-exhaustive, allowing the inquiry to consider any other relevant actors, as needed. The Committee also included a recommendation in its report that the inquiry should report on a modular basis to allow the inclusion of as many institutions as possible in the redress scheme.

Amendment Nos 5 to 7 relate to clause 9, which outlines how assessors may be appointed to provide the inquiry with expertise in a particular field, where necessary, so as to provide the panel with the expertise that it needs to fulfil its terms of reference. The response to our call for evidence demonstrated a clear need for trauma-informed, survivor-sensitive experts to be included in the assessor cohort. The Committee agreed to seek three amendments to leave out the words "assessors" and "assessor" and replace them with the words "expert advisers" and "expert adviser" to better reflect the nature and purpose of the role.

Amendment No 8 relates to clause 10, which provides the inquiry chairperson with the power to establish an advisory panel. The Committee sought to strengthen the clause by seeking to introduce a procedural safeguard for how the chairperson exercises his or her power in appointing advisers to the panel.

Amendment No 17 relates to clause 20, which requires the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to lay any report published under clause 19 before the Assembly when it is published or as soon as possible thereafter. Stakeholders emphasised the need for transparency and therefore welcomed requirements for those publications to be laid. The Committee agreed to seek an amendment to leave out the wording from "either" until the end of line 9, which would mean that the Ministers should publish reports at the time of publication or as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter. The amendment would strengthen the clause by removing the flexible and potentially open-ended time frame for laying those reports before the Assembly.

Amendment No 20 relates to clause 26, which sets out the time frame for applying for judicial review (JR). Throughout the call for evidence, it was clear that a 14-day timescale was regarded as being too short for bringing an application for judicial review. In response, the Committee agreed to seek to amend the provision to extend the time limit to 21 days, which would provide a more reasonable and workable time period.

The last of the Committee's amendments in group 1 is amendment No 22, which relates to clause 27. The clause outlines the procedural regulations to be made by the Executive Office to govern how the inquiry operates. Throughout the Bill's Committee Stage, witnesses emphasised that victims and survivors should be granted core participant status from the outset of the inquiry. The Committee's amendment would ensure that core participant status is not discretionary but a built-in requirement, which would strengthen the role and voice of victims and survivors from the very beginning.

Finally, the Committee welcomes the amendments in the group that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister tabled. They will give effect to the Committee's intent for a number of clauses. In several instances, the Committee withdrew its own amendments in favour of the Executive Office's wording, which we felt better reflected the broader book of the law. I advise the House that, as a consequence, I will not be moving amendment Nos 26 and 27 in the next group.

I will now make some points as an individual MLA. I reiterate in a personal capacity my sincerest thanks as I pay enormous tribute to the victims and survivors who have given so freely of their time during the process. I am sure that, at times, it was not easy, but it was so hugely beneficial.

I will speak to a number of amendments to give my personal reflection on why we are supporting them or opposing them. I will start with amendment No 2. As a Committee, we extended the opportunity to hear the voices of private hospitals, private maternity homes, general practitioners, social workers, clergy and private businesses. We felt that there were victims and survivors who did not see themselves in the Bill. In some ways, it was not necessary for us to do that because it will be up to the chairperson and the panel, through the terms of reference, to ensure that the process is as inclusive as possible. However, we felt that it was important that people felt that they had a sense of ownership of this. In many ways, where there is a call for more homes to be added to the list of relevant institutions, that will allow people who were in private hospitals, for example, to be moved across to the list of those who are eligible. That is why our Committee report states that the inquiry should be conducted in modular form so that, at the end of each section, it will give power and authority to the chairperson of the inquiry to move those institutions to that list, thereby opening it up and not requiring the whole process of the inquiry to be concluded. Obviously, we are pushing for that.

In particular, I pay tribute to the Executive Office for tabling amendment No 3 to insert a new sub-paragraph (ia) to include:

"a woman or girl who had become pregnant while she was under the care of the workhouse;"

I am aware of one instance where a young woman — I think that she was possibly below the age of 18 and was technically a child — was under the care of a workhouse and became pregnant while staying there and subsequently was moved to a mother-and-baby institution to give birth. We have to, in this process, recognise the incredible trauma caused and the abuse of women and girls that took place at that time. Again, I thank the Executive Office for recognising that. It is one instance that I know of, and I am sure that there are others. I appreciate the fact that the Executive Office added that provision.

Amendment No 10 proposes a new clause around contributions to payments. Again, that was tabled by the Executive Office, but the Committee pushed very hard for it. We have a strong sense of justice around this. The institutions that were responsible for the abuse and harm to those pregnant women and to the children should contribute to the redress scheme. I have no problem with the public purse contributing the majority of the money, but I think that the institutions should be paying. That new clause puts them on notice today that they cannot get away in that regard. They have, in many ways, dodged contributing to the historical institutional abuse redress scheme, and I would be very pleased to see that new clause in the Bill. Hopefully, if the amendment is accepted today, they will be on notice that contributions will be sought. Members will see that the proposed new clause refers to charity law, so, obviously, the Executive Office has looked at that. I think that that squares off any concerns that others may have.

We will support Gerry's amendment Nos 12, 13, 14 and 16. They certainly add value to the Bill, and I appreciate the time that he has taken to submit those amendments. In Gerry's amendment No 21, he has sought to extend —

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Chair of the Committee for giving way. She has articulated that she will support amendment No 12. The Chair is much more familiar with the Bill than I am, but I have read clause 16. Does the Chair not think that what is in amendment No 12 is sufficiently covered in clause 16, rather than adding the new subsection to the Bill?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you. I think that you are right, but I want the Bill to be as comprehensive as possible, and that puts the Republic of Ireland and GB on notice that they should be complying and cooperating with the inquiry. I agree that, in some ways, it might be superfluous, but it would be useful if it were in the Bill so that people are put on notice. As you say, amendment No 16 gives the chairperson the flexibility to publish a report where there is public interest in that.

I move to amendment Nos 20 and 21. Gerry suggested in his amendment No 21 that the extension for applying for judicial review should be extended from14 to 28 days. I am open to that. A lot of judicial reviews stay open for three months, so I have no problem with that.

On amendment No 22 to clause 27, core participant status, which we have talked about, is so important. We saw in the COVID and Muckamore Abbey Hospital inquiries that it is so important that the people directly affected are given, at the very start, support to access evidence and in their ability to question witnesses.

That is all that I have to say on that group.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I begin by speaking directly to every victim and every survivor who is watching and listening — there are many of them in the Public Gallery: this day is for you and about you; it has been a long time coming, as you know better than any of us in the Chamber.

In March 2021, the Executive appointed Ms Deirdre Mahon, Dr Maeve O’Rourke and Professor Phil Scraton to head up the truth recovery design panel. The panel published its report in October 2021. It made five main recommendations, all of which the Executive accepted, and that led to the truth recovery programme. The Bill gives statutory footing to recommendations 3 and 5, the public inquiry and the financial redress scheme.

Over the past five years, I have spoken many times in the House about the unmarked graves — babies buried without names and without dignity. I have spoken about women and girls who were stripped of their identities, forced to labour, separated from their children, and told that they were the ones who had to be ashamed. Let me be clear: the Churches' response to the issue has been, at best, inadequate and, at worst, a disgrace — no compassion, no acknowledgement of the suffering that they caused, and no love. That is simply not good enough, and the Assembly must seek every available means to ensure that they are held to account and that they pay.

Our past is shameful. Women were hidden away, punished for nothing more than being pregnant. Their babies were taken from their arms. Some of the women spent their whole lives in those institutions. Yesterday evening, all MLAs got three photographs on behalf of Robert O'Connor's mother, who was in a Magdalene laundry: the Good Shepherd's Convent. I lived on the same street: I grew up on that street until I was 10 years old. I regularly saw those women going to and from the chapel. To me, they were old women, but, obviously, I was a child. They were not old; they were young. Those photographs are important as they show clearly the faces of stolen lives — of the women who never got out of the institutions once they were admitted. Robert's mother was buried under the wrong name. After much campaigning, Robert managed to get her name changed on the headstone, in memory of the woman who had been held in the Magdalene laundry there.

I have visited the grave, and it is beyond sad to read the names and bear witness to the tragedy of our past. Her name was Brigid O'Connor.

Today will be procedural and functional, because it has to be. However, before turning to the amendments in the group, it is important that we remind ourselves why the legislation is needed in the first place. Behind every clause, amendment and procedural discussion are real people, and, as I said, some of them are in the Gallery: women who were hidden away; young girls made to feel ashamed; and children denied identity, dignity and compassion. They were people who entered the institutions vulnerable and were left carrying the trauma that followed them for the rest of their lives.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does she agree that this is not something from the past but is very much in the present? It is trans-generational. No matter how long ago the women and their children were in those homes, it affects them today and will affect their families in the future, their children and their children's children. Everything that was done affects every part of their lives, every part of their families and their families' future. This is an opportunity to maybe make that right.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Absolutely. We all speak with one voice in that, or, at least, I hope that we do.

For decades, survivors were expected to remain silent about what happened behind the walls of the mother-and-baby homes. Many were treated as though they had done something wrong. Many lost children or family connections. Many were denied basic humanity at moments in their lives when they needed care and support. What deepens that hurt even further is that so many survivors spent years trying to be heard but were ignored. That is why the legislation matters: not because it can erase the suffering that people experienced — it cannot — but because it represents an opportunity to finally acknowledge that suffering honestly and publicly. If the Assembly is serious about that acknowledgement, we have to ensure that the process is shaped around survivors and their experiences. That is why many of the amendments in the group are important.

Amendment No 1, from the Committee, places a clear time frame on the publication of the terms of reference, and that matters because survivors have already waited far too long. They deserve certainty and progress and to know that the process will not drift indefinitely while people continue to grow older and, in some cases, pass away before seeing justice delivered.

I also welcome amendment No 2, which broadens the understanding of who may have been involved in systematic failings, because the suffering experienced in the institutions did not happen in isolation. It involved wider systems of authority and influence. It involved institutions, public bodies and individuals who either enabled abuse, ignored it or failed to challenge it. If the inquiry is to uncover the full truth, its scope must be reflected in that reality.

We also support amendments intended to strengthen the structure and operation of the inquiry. I do not intend to go into every amendment in the group from amendment No 1 to amendment No 24, because the majority of them have been agreed by the Committee and changes were made by the Executive Office. Therefore, some of the Committee amendments were withdrawn, and the other amendments are widely agreed. We are very supportive of amendment Nos 1 to 24, and we support amendment Nos 12, 13 and 16 from Gerry Carroll.

When it comes to amendment No 21, we discussed extending the JR period, and we landed on 21 days. Perhaps it should be 28 days; I would like to hear how the Member came to that, because, if that is a better amendment, I will have no problem with it.

For many survivors, processes such as this — this is why I do not really want to get into it line by line; we have done it, and we have shared it — sometimes generate a lot of mistrust, particularly if someone has been the victim of a prolonged and torturous process, as, at times, this one has been. Too often in the past, systems protected institutions before they protected victims.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I echo her comments about the strength and tenacity that the victims have shown throughout. I am not a member of the Executive Office Committee, but I pay tribute to all its members, who have done a massive amount of work in scrutinising the Bill.

I would like your opinion on amendment No 10. At Second Stage, everyone agreed that no stone should be left unturned when it comes to making sure that every institution involved in such shameful acts is held to account and that any moneys that can be got from such institutions are got in order to support victims. Will you expand on the Committee's work on that and on how impactful that amendment would be?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you for that, John. A lot of time was spent on the amendment on contributions to payments. It is fair to say that the Committee was critical of the pace at which contributions were being sought from the institutions. We worked hard and took a lot of evidence on that. We are satisfied with and will support amendment No 10 that would insert new clause 12A — 12A(1) to 12A(4) — because not seeking contributions from the institutions that did the most damage would not be justice, and that would not serve the public or this place.

I will address the issue that has caused deep hurt and frustration among survivors and campaigners in the past 24 hours: the decision not to select an amendment —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— that would have removed the posthumous cut-off date —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— for redress payments.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order, Ms McLaughlin.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

OK. I know that it is not —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— in the group.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. Those decisions are taken with the best advice. You know nothing about what goes on in the background, and it is not in order for you to challenge that.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, I do not think that it is respectful to say that I know nothing about what goes on in the background.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

It is not disrespectful to anybody, because nobody knows except those in the Speaker's Office. I am not being disrespectful to anyone. A decision has been made, and it is not in order for you to challenge it. If you wish to proceed, you should do so without doing that.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As things stand, anyone who died before 29 September 2011 will remain excluded from redress. I have to say honestly that many people are devastated by that outcome. Overnight, I received a significant number of emails from individuals and families expressing profound disappointment and upset. For many campaigners, the Committee's amendment represented a real, major breakthrough. It was seen as recognition that survivors who suffered the same trauma as others should not be treated differently simply because they died before an arbitrary date. Removing the opportunity to debate that has caused real pain, because, for many families, this does not feel procedural; it feels personal.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. That is the very point that I made earlier: it does not matter how long ago the women and their children were in the institutions, because it impacts on them today and will do so for the rest of their lives. It impacts on their families, their children and their grandchildren, and they deserve to be acknowledged. It is about that acknowledgement and the opportunity to make what was done, which was so wrong, a little better — a little bit right.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I agree. It feels like another reminder that some of the people who are suffering will once again go unrecognised. After everything that survivors have endured, nobody in the Chamber should underestimate the impact of that decision.

The frustration reflects a wider point that runs through the debate, which is that survivors are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness and, in many cases, justice. As Linda said, they are also asking to be acknowledged. They seek a process that reflects the full scale of what happened to them and their families. That is why the amendments on transparency, publication of reports and cooperation beyond Northern Ireland are so important. Truth recovery cannot operate behind closed doors, nor can it stop at borders. If relevant evidence exists elsewhere, the amendments tabled by Gerry Carroll on cooperation with bodies outside Northern Ireland and recording failures to provide evidence are significant. Where institutions refuse to cooperate, survivors deserve to know that.

I pay tribute to those who have worked hard to make the Bill a reality. Many staff from the Executive Office have been exemplary. They have come to the Committee week in, week out to give evidence and to support the Committee through the process. I acknowledge that. I especially thank Professor Leanne McCormick and Professor Sean O'Connell, the co-chairs of the independent panel, and the members of the Executive Office, who have worked tirelessly.

The responsibility is now on all Members not simply to pass the legislation but to ensure that that legislation is worthy of the people whose experiences made it necessary. That means building an inquiry process that is thorough, transparent and genuinely centred on survivors. That is what the amendments seek to strengthen, and it is why they matter.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I declare an interest: my mother resided in a mother-and-baby home that is referenced in schedule 2 to the Bill.

I warmly welcome all those who have joined us in the Public Gallery and the many who will be watching online. Many of them have been with us throughout the process, and their continued presence is absolutely testament to why getting the legislation right matters. They have shown enormous courage in sharing their experiences, and I pay tribute to all of them. As we debate the amendments, we must keep their voices and the need to deliver truth, recognition and accountability at the centre of the process.

With your indulgence, a Cheann Comhairle

[Translation: Mr Speaker]

, I will make some general remarks before progressing to discuss the amendments. Today marks another significant step in what has been for far too many victims and survivors a long and painful journey towards truth, recognition and justice. We welcome the next stage of the Bill. The Bill carries not only legal significance but a moral responsibility for us all. For decades, those affected and impacted on by those institutions were ignored, dismissed or simply not believed. Many carried trauma, shame, separation and loss in silence. That was often because societies, institutions and the state failed to listen. Too many had to fight to have their experiences even acknowledged.

As we discuss the amendments, we must recognise that the legislation goes way beyond structures and processes. At its heart, it is about people: women, girls, children and families whose lives were shaped by the institutions that exercised control, authority and power. Care, compassion and accountability are owed to them all. Victims and survivors have shown extraordinary courage, many of them at enormous emotional cost, reopening painful memories and experiences in the hope that future generations would not have to experience the same silence and denial. We owe it to them to ensure that the process is worthy of their bravery, and that means ensuring that the Bill is as robust, transparent, inclusive and survivor-focused as we can make it.

We particularly welcome amendment Nos 2 and 3, which would strengthen and widen the scope of the inquiry. Confidence in the process will depend on whether people feel that their experiences are genuinely recognised. Too many people have spent decades feeling that what happened to them fell outside of official definitions or was beyond institutional recognition. If the inquiry is truly to command the public confidence that it needs, it must be broad enough to capture the full, abhorrent extent of institutional involvement and the systemic failures that have enabled abuse, coercion and injustice to persist over generations. The inclusion of women and girls who became pregnant while in the care of those institutions is particularly important. They were in environments in which they should have been protected; instead, many faced sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse and mistreatment. Their experiences matter, and those women and girls deserve to be fully included in any process that seeks to determine accountability and recover truth.

We also welcome the amendments that replace the term "assessor" with "expert adviser". At first glance, they may seem technical in nature, but the language in the Bill matters. People deserve to have confidence that those involved in the inquiry will approach their experiences with compassion and a deep understanding of the trauma that they have carried. Every interaction has the potential either to support the healing process or to reopen old wounds. That is why it is essential that the inquiry be grounded in trauma-informed, survivor-sensitive practice from the beginning through to the very end.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)

We also support amendment No 8, which would recognise the need for consultation with panel members. That is an important safeguard that would strengthen collective decision-making and ensure that a wide range of expertise informs how the inquiry proceeds. Given the scale and complexity of the work, meaningful consultation should not be discretionary in this case and needs to be embedded throughout the process.

Amendment No 10 is equally important. Financial contributions cannot undo suffering or return the years that were stolen through trauma. Accountability must be meaningful, and people should not be left feeling that institutions can, on the one hand, acknowledge harm publicly but, on the other hand, avoid any practical steps to address that harm or the consequences of it. Recognition without accountability risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive. Victims and survivors deserve more than words. They deserve meaningful action.

We also support amendment Nos 12 and 13, which would strengthen the inquiry's ability to gather evidence beyond this jurisdiction. Throughout the Committee Stage, victims and survivors were clear with us that the process cannot be narrow, partial or bound up in bureaucracy and red tape. The truth does not stop at borders. We know that records, decision-making, institutional relationships and responsibilities extended well beyond the North and that actors across these islands were involved. If the inquiry is genuinely committed to truth recovery, it must be empowered to pursue evidence wherever it exists. Many seek answers not only for themselves but for children, siblings, parents and relatives whose stories remain hidden, denied or unresolved. Truth recovery matters, because acknowledgement matters. Acknowledgement that is incomplete can deepen hurt rather than heal it.

Finally, we strongly support amendment No 22 on core participant status. Victims and survivors should not have to observe a process that is designed to address the harm done to them: they must be recognised as playing a central role in the process. Core participant status is vital, because it recognises lived experiences and ensures that people have a meaningful voice in proceedings that concern their lives, their experiences and their histories.

As legislators, we should never lose sight of the fact that no Bill that is passed in the Chamber can fully undo people's hurt and trauma. We cannot erase that trauma, return lost years, repair every fractured relationship or remove the stigma that many continue to carry. However, we can choose to listen; we can choose to acknowledge wrongdoing fully; and we can choose to build a process rooted in dignity, truth, compassion and accountability. Our responsibility today is not just to pass legislation or amendments but to begin restoring trust to people who were profoundly failed by institutions, systems and, too often, the state.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on today's Consideration Stage in what is an historic moment for victims and survivors in Northern Ireland. At the outset, I pay tribute, as others have done, to the victims and survivors for their bravery and dedication. When silence would have been easier, they stepped forward — not just for themselves but for their families and for the generations of victims that came before them.

I must make it clear that I have not had as much involvement in the Bill as other members of the Committee. I joined the Committee relatively recently. I pay tribute to my colleagues who undertook work in advance of my arrival. I also pay tribute to Committee members from all other political parties for their work and, in particular, to the Chair of the Committee for her work, her diligence and her dedication to the process. It is telling that all of the amendments in the group tabled in the name of the Committee were unanimously agreed by the Committee. That is because all Committee members and, I believe, all Members wanted to ensure that the evidence that we received from victims and survivors was reflected in the Bill and the changes that we see today. That was their approach to the Bill. As a party, we will support all amendments tabled in the names of the Committee and the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

I turn now to some of the amendments tabled by Mr Carroll. I know that the process is the process, but it is difficult to speak to amendments for which the amendments' proposer has not had the opportunity to articulate his case. However, I have some concerns, particularly in relation to amendment No 14. I hope that Mr Carroll will have the opportunity to speak to it.

Amendment No 14 would insert:

"(8a) Where evidence requested under this section is not provided, the inquiry must record and report — (a) the nature of the evidence sought, and (b) the person, body or public authority from whom it was sought."

My concern is twofold. First, there is no requirement to record the reason why the information was not provided. For example, if the information was not available, that would not be recorded. I am also concerned that, if a request were sent to a victim or survivor who did not want to partake in the process or did not want to hand over evidence or information that they might have, their name would be placed on the public record as someone who had refused to engage with the inquiry. Mr Carroll's amendment may be well intentioned, but my concern is that it could have unintended consequences. It could wrongly attribute blame or concern in the public eye if the name of an individual or public authority that did not have the information were to be published or the name of a victim who did not want to take part in the process were to be published. I have concerns around re-traumatising them as a victim. I also have GDPR concerns in that regard. I hope that Mr Carroll is able to talk to those.

I turn now to amendment Nos 12 and 13. Mr Carroll is not a member of the Committee, but junior Minister Reilly, junior Minister Bunting and officials gave a clear commitment that cross-border cooperation had already started and would continue in earnest. The intention of amendment Nos 12 and 13 is already reflected in the Bill. Maybe Mr Carroll can articulate his points when he has the opportunity to speak to those amendments.

I do not want to get into political disagreement. The concerns that I have outlined are based not on party political concerns but on a concern that the amendments, although well intentioned, may undermine the process or the integrity of the Bill.

I also want to address the attempt that was made in the House to challenge the Speaker's decisions. That was disappointing. The Speaker does not have and has not had the opportunity to respond to that. He receives procedural advice and takes decisions based on that advice, but let us be clear: the Speaker's record in supporting victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA) is second to none. He championed those issues, and I find it repugnant that any Member of the House would attempt to undermine the credibility of the Speaker or his decisions.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When Sinéad McLaughlin was on her feet, the Speaker said that no one should address an amendment that was not selected. If that rule applies to Sinéad, it needs to apply to Phillip, in my opinion.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I saw from outside the Chamber the comments that were made earlier. During the debate, there will be no discussion of the Speaker's decision or of amendments that were not selected. Members have been given some latitude to talk about the evidence that came before the Committee. That latitude has been exercised and is appropriate. However, it is inappropriate and not permitted to discuss the Speaker's decisions or any process around that. Ms Ní Chuilín's comments will be referred to the Speaker's Office.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I begin, like all Members who have spoken in the debate, by paying tribute to the victims and survivors and all those who had the bravery to come forward and tell their stories. I thank all who have assisted them. We listened to what people had to tell us, including in Committee, about traumatic circumstances, and we heard very personal stories. I also thank the experts and supporters from a range of organisations who have been with the victims and survivors from the beginning of the Bill process. I sincerely thank all those people.

It has been a litany of horrific stories. I do not think that I will ever lose the memory of things that people told us as we conducted our Committee inquiry. We listened to harrowing stories, as my colleague Paula Bradshaw, the Chair of the Committee, said. We heard stories of people who were treated with stone-cold dislike because of the circumstances that they found themselves in. The stories are nothing but harrowing.

I welcome the progress that the Bill has made and strongly acknowledge all the people who are at the heart of what we have been trying to achieve through the legislation, particularly those who are in the Public Gallery today. I assure the House that the Committee took its responsibilities in scrutinising the Bill extremely seriously. Like other members, I came to the Committee some time ago, when the Bill was already under way. Again, I pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee not only because she is a party colleague but because I am genuinely impressed by the work of Paula Bradshaw and her knowledge and understanding of all the cases that came before us. Her attention to the detail of the Bill is second to none.

Over many months, we received 91 written submissions and heard oral evidence from 24 organisations. We held round-table events across Northern Ireland, and, as has been stated, members of the Committee undertook trauma-informed training before we began the process. I am immensely proud of the work that the Committee did and the work that has been done in the Committee to produce its report and the amendments that are before the House today.

I will now speak to the amendments — at least a couple of them — in group 1.

Amendment No 1, which requires the terms of reference to be published within six months of the Act's commencement, is a commitment to survivors that the process will not drift, as all too often happens in these types of processes. It has gone on for so long and has been so difficult for people. Once the Bill gets Royal Assent and becomes law, it must not be allowed to drift. Over the many months of evidence, we have all heard how the uncertainty has caused people emotional trauma. They have waited far too long for the legislation to happen.

Amendment No 10 inserts a new clause on the financial contributions from institutions that are found to have committed systemic failings. It has already been mentioned. A Member raised it in an intervention. This has been an area on which I, as a Committee member, have pressed extremely hard, because, as Members will be aware, in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland — I also saw a documentary recently on the BBC with regard to similar circumstances in England — and particularly in the Republic of Ireland, it has seemed extremely difficult to be able to get institutions — the perpetrators of these events — to contribute financially. While many of the perpetrators of those harms are long since gone, the institutions, their charitable status and their property remain to this day. We have worked exceedingly hard as a Committee to see what we can do. We pushed back in the discussion that we had with the Executive Office. We looked at best international practice. We took strong legal advice to see what we could do to ensure that those institutions that failed people are made to pay. Regrettably, we are not on particularly strong legal ground with regard to this matter. Amendment No 10 is the best that we can do to achieve responsibility for those organisations to pay for their guilt. It is not where I want to be, nor is it where we should be. We should have an amendment that states that, where the inquiry finds you guilty of the crimes that you have committed against those people, you should pay.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Deputy Chair for giving way. Does he agree that it would be even more preferable if those institutions offered a contribution at the earliest outset of the process?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you very much, Chair. I agree with the Chair: it would be useful and helpful if those institutions came forward now and offered restitution. However, it cannot be token restitution. Regrettably, token restitution is what we have seen coming forward from other inquiries in other jurisdictions.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Stewart, for giving way. It is the second time that you have given way to me — or that I have interrupted you — today. The Member has accepted that amendment No 10 is certainly an improvement on what we had been advised. Does he agree that it still gives the inquiry chair and panel some flexibility? If it ascertains that there is reluctance to make what it sees as appropriate redress, there may be an aspect of "compellability", without calling it that; in other words, that it can tell an institution to revise its offer and come back again?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Yes. I thank the Member for her intervention. I absolutely agree with her. We have absolutely gone as far as we can to do that. While we cannot compel, we have certainly taken this to the very limit that I believe is legally possible for us.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Deputy Chair for giving way and also for his dedication during the process. Does he agree that, actually, the insertion of a new clause by amendment No 10 would be the result of a huge amount of work by the Chair, the Deputy Chair and other Committee members, because it was a matter of particular angst for the Committee that there was no mechanism by which institutions that were involved in that process could contribute to recompense for the harm that they caused, and that the Committee tried to push the Executive Office as far as it could to try to deliver that?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you. I agree that we have absolutely pushed the Executive Office to the limit, plus we have tested the legal situation to the best of our ability in respect of this and have looked at best international practice.

Moving on, I also welcome the extension of the appeals period from 30 days to 90 days under amendment No 36; an amendment that promotes the scheme actively and ensures that survivors, including those in the diaspora, know of it, how it exists and how to access it.

Those are among other amendments that we will support today. They make real and meaningful improvements. I wish to speak to the other two groups of amendments as we —.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Deputy Chair for giving way. He has been very generous with his time in that respect. I am not a member of the Committee, but I am interested to hear the Committee's thoughts on amendment Nos 20 and 21. The Department originally proposed 14 days for those rare occasions where a judicial review might be required to be taken on behalf of a victim. Those will be rare, but, in my mind, it is important to give that individual the most amount of time possible. What were the Committee's deliberations on, potentially, going against 14 days and up to 21 days? Can we get a feeling for the amendment from the Member from West Belfast for 28 days, which is possibly where I am siding at this time?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, there has to be adequate time. On the figures that are currently contained in the amendments, as set out, and as the Chair has already indicated, certainly, we will support Gerry Carroll's amendment with regard to the move from 14 days to 28 days. To be absolutely clear — this point will apply to other amendments in other groups later in today's debate — should the evidence of today's debate indicate to us that we need to bring further amendments, I am certainly not afraid of suggesting or saying in the Chamber today that those amendments will be brought forward at Further Consideration Stage.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Like all other members of the Committee who have spoken before me, I want Hansard to record my appreciation and thanks to all the victims and survivors who stepped forward to give evidence to the Committee in the room, at the stakeholder events or through correspondence. The oral testimonies that we heard were powerful, as many victims and survivors relived their traumatic experiences that took place in the institutions, the laundries, the workhouses or, indeed, the private settings.

From the outset of hearing the testimonies, I knew that the Bill would leave many people disappointed. The very legislation itself, when it was introduced, was of limited scope. The Committee has tried, and it has tried in vain, to include as many people as possible in order to recognise the hurt and trauma that many victims and survivors experienced in those places and to recognise that what was allowed to happen was not right. As we looked back and heard from those who gave oral testimonies, we recognised that what was permitted to happen was a shame.

I am pleased to see that the Executive Office has taken on board many of the Committee's amendments and tabled them in its own wording. It has listened; it has reacted; and it has put the amendments into its own words. On that basis, I pay tribute to the officials who came to the Committee, listened to our concerns and did something about it.

Moving on to the amendments, I start with amendment No 1, tabled in the name of the Chair, Paula Bradshaw. It is a very important amendment that will ensure that the terms of reference are published in a timely manner. I say this to the Executive Office: the House will not have seen the completed terms of reference before Members are asked that the Bill be given full approval at Final Stage. I trust that those who are charged with writing the terms of reference have listened to the victims and survivors and to the Committee members and will take those points on board. In particular, as I mentioned at Committee, I want to see that birth mothers are called forward first to give evidence in the inquiry. I believe that is important to ensure that a firm foundation is laid for the duration of the inquiry, and there is no better place to start a public inquiry than to hear directly from those who suffered harm at the hands of the institutions.

Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are about people seeing themselves as being part of the Bill, which is very important. The Bill relates not only to religious institutions and state-run settings but to people who were in private settings and those who worked in them. The inquiry must hear from those people. Part of the deliberation and focus on ensuring that that was included in the Bill was so that people can read the Bill and see for themselves that they are part of it. That is why the Committee pushed for private settings to be included. Their stories are paramount to ensuring that no voice is left out of the inquiry, and it gives as many people as possible the opportunity to have their thoughts heard and their experience considered.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I think the Member for giving way. Will the Member agree that the Committee wrangled with the issue so much because we were very conscious that the scope of the Bill was about the institutions, but we also recognised that the pathways for many of the pregnant women were so complex, and we grappled with how we could reflect that in the Bill?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I absolutely agree with the Chair's contribution. The pathways that led people to the institutions were great. They were vast. That is why I am glad that the Committee unanimously got to the position and pushed to make sure that it was included in the Bill so that people can identify themselves in it.

During the Committee Stage, I had two objectives that I wanted to see delivered in the legislation. The groundwork for one of those objectives was delivered with amendment No 10, which is new clause 12A. That relates to the contributions that are very important moving forward. Many victims and survivors who gave testimony to the Committee do not care about the money from the redress scheme. What was important for them was to get to the truth and to finally get some acknowledgement from the religious institutions that what took place in their settings was wrong. For many, this will be the first time that they have got any form of justice, the first time that they have been listened to and the first time that oral testimonies will be taken forward in a way that will bring justice and bring those accountable to task. That is very important.

The state should not be left to pick up the cost for the entire redress scheme and the inquiry. It is very important for victims and survivors that the settings that allowed that practice of abuse to happen are brought to task. It will bring some form of closure for many and for some who take part in the inquiry, but it is not the end of the road, and it will not bring complete closure. That is why we need to have contributions. Indeed, the Deputy Chair alluded to it. It is something that the Committee grappled with at length. We were told that we could not put anything like that in the Bill, but the Committee took the stance that it was a red line. We needed something included in the Bill for future legislation so that, if systemic failings are identified, the House and the Government will pursue those who are responsible.

I have a slight concern regarding new clause 12A(3)(c). I trust that none of those who are in charge of enacting the legislation will allow so-called charities that are asset-rich but cash-poor to shield those assets and keep them aside so that they cannot be sought for their contribution.

If systemic failings are found to have occurred in institutions that have cash or assets, we need to do everything in our power to make sure that they pay towards the scheme.

Amendment Nos 12, 13, 14 and 16 —.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I note in particular his comments about the charitable status of various organisations. There is still some concern for us in respect of the relationship between charity legislation in Northern Ireland and the impact that the Bill will have. There is still space and time for the Committee to continue to do work in order for it to be absolutely sure that charitable status does not trump the Bill's ability to seek payments or that it excuses people from making payments. I look forward to hearing what the junior Ministers have to say in that regard.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I absolutely agree with the Deputy Chair of the Committee. We need to make sure that those whom we task with going after those organisations seek justice and accountability and that they will not be put off by those who hide behind the fact that they have no capital. If they have assets, they have capital, and that should be available to fund part of the process, which includes the inquiry and the redress scheme.

Amendment Nos 12, 13, 14 and 16 stand in the name of Mr Carroll. I have no problem with any of them and am happy to support them. I put this to whichever junior Minister responds to the debate on the group 1 amendments: there is all this talk at all these meetings of cross-border bodies, including the North/South Ministerial Council, but how many times has the Bill been raised at them? Has it been raised? Has agreement been reached on the need to make sure that contributions are paid by those organisations that reside in the South so that they cannot hide behind the fact that they are in another jurisdiction? I want to hear from the junior Ministers about the steps that they, or the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, have taken to ensure that the South plays its role in handing over not only any information that may be available but the contributions that need to come from there.

In his intervention, Mr Stewart made a number of points about amendment No 20. Yes, I was deeply unhappy and uncomfortable with the time limit of 14 days in the Bill as introduced, as it is a significant departure from usual practice. Indeed, usual practice ranges from 30 days to six weeks or three months. I was willing to compromise when we were able to get the Committee from 14 days to 21 days, but I am happy with Mr Carroll's amendment No 21. On that basis, I am content that the period to apply for JR be extended to 28 days. Regardless of whether it is the mind of the House that it be 21 or 28 days, it is very important for the wording to mean that that period is from the date that the person is made aware of the decision, because we need to give those people as much time as possible to apply. They have waited for years to see the legislation get to this stage, so the least that we can do is give them adequate time, should they be turned down at the first hurdle and a judicial review be required, to get the necessary legal advice and, if necessary, the legal representation to take forward a judicial review. Those are my comments on the group 1 amendments.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will speak to the group 1 amendments that stand in my name, which are amendment Nos 12, 13, 14, 16 and 21. This should not need to be said in the Chamber in 2026, but it must be put on the record that the women who were impacted on by the institutions that we are discussing today were not criminals or shameful. They were human beings — mothers, daughters and sisters — who were imprisoned by a system in which Church and state colluded to strip them of their dignity and, in many cases, of their children. I extend my solidarity to those women, including those who are present in the Gallery and those who are watching the debate.

I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate so far and those who have indicated their support for my amendments. I commend Committee members for their work. I commend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for mentioning her mother. I imagine that that was not easy to do, but fair play to her. I extend my solidarity to her as well.

Before I address the legislation, I want to speak about the experience of Mr Robert O'Connor, who emailed me, Sinéad and other MLAs. As has been said, he mentioned that his mother was in the Good Shepherd Magdalene laundry in Derry. Decades ago, when Robert asked about his mother, he was told that she had passed away. Years later, he was contacted and asked to attend her funeral, only to find out that she had been buried under the wrong name. After years of campaigning, Robert finally succeeded in having her name corrected on the stone that memorialised women there. As Sinéad said, he sent us photographs of his mother before and after she was put into the laundry. His message to us was simple:

"Please do not forget about these women when you vote on anything regarding the proposed inquiry".

That is very pertinent today.

The legislation is welcome and long overdue. The women and families who have campaigned for decades deserve to see it on the statute book. However, while it is welcome, that does not mean that it is perfect or sufficient. I have to say clearly that the fact that an arbitrary cut-off date for a posthumous claim remains in the Bill is completely unacceptable. An explanation is owed, not to me or the Committee necessarily, but to victims and survivors. Like other Members, I have been contacted by scores of constituents overnight who are devastated that an amendment on that was not selected for today's debate. I am sure that it is the same for others in the House.

Equally, workhouses are not included in schedule 2 to the Bill, meaning that those who were impacted by workhouses remain ineligible for the redress payment, despite workhouses being in the title of the Bill. I will address those issues later in the debate.

I will now turn to the amendments in this group.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way. On his last point, I want to reiterate what we said in the Committee report. We felt that if the chairperson of the inquiry finds that there has been abuse in those workhouses or in any institution or facility, they can refer individuals to the list of relevant institutions. The Committee was very conscious that we had to go with the evidence that was before us. The problem with including workhouses wholesale in the list of relevant institutions is that it opens it up to men and every single person who went into them, because the redress scheme is an admissions-based scheme. That is something that we contemplated, and I understand that some people feel the injustice of it, but there was a rationale.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

OK. I thank the Member for that. I will, perhaps, come back to that in debate on the group 2 amendments.

Turning to the amendments in this group, I am broadly supportive of them all. However, I have some concerns that, hopefully, can be addressed. Clause 15 sets out the extent to which the inquiry proceedings can be held in private, evidence can be withheld from the public domain or a person's identity can be concealed. The balance there remains enormous; obviously, survivors must be protected and should not be retraumatised by exposure that they did not consent to. There is a difference, however, between protection for survivors and protection for institutions. I have some concerns about that, and I am sure that others do as well.

The evidence that the Committee received raised concerns about the misuse of clause 15 in order to shield institutions. I have some concerns about that, to put it mildly, and there were widespread concerns about it amongst Committee members, so I hope that the relevant Minister can address them. Restriction orders must not become a mechanism by which the Churches or organisations that were responsible for the abuses can avoid public accountability. Transparency and victim protection are not mutually exclusive. As I said, however, we need to be careful that clause 15 is not weaponised against the very purpose of the inquiry, and assurances will be welcome.

Clause 17 deals with the privilege of witnesses before the inquiry in relation to requests for information. I have concerns about the potential for public interest immunity (PII) to be used and misused. Historically, PII claims have been used by powerful institutions and state bodies in order to suppress uncomfortable truths. Given the nature of the inquiry and the track record of some of the organisations involved, we need to be careful and watchful, for want of stronger words —

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Sure. I will just finish my point — that protections are not exploited in order to withhold evidence that survivors have every right to see. I give way to the Member.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I appreciate the Member's giving way. That point was very well articulated by the Member for North Belfast Ms Ní Chuilín. She sought clear commitments from officials that that would not be the case. That has been included in the Committee report as a result of Carál's work.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

OK. I thank the Member for that. Assurances need to be provided. I will check those commitments in the report.

Clause 25 provides immunity from civil action for inquiry panel members, legal advisers, advisory panel members, assessors and staff. I understand some of the rationale behind that. I think that the evidence to the Committee broadly supported protecting inquiry staff, but there are concerns about the accountability of other participants, particularly representative organisations and the institutions.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry, thank you for giving way. The Committee was unanimous in supporting victims and survivors being given core participant status. We agreed to take a modular approach, which means that not just legal representatives but groups such as Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice will have core participant status. As you will probably agree, their evidence will be stronger than anyone else's.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I agree. I thank the Member for that. My point was that, although those individuals and everybody facilitating the inquiry should be protected, concerns have been raised about a broader culture of immunity, especially for institutions and the people who caused harm in the first place.

I thank Members for their supportive comments about my amendments. The intention of my amendments is to strengthen the inquiry and make it better by extending its purpose and usefulness. As Members have said, amendment No 21 seeks to increase the time limit for judicial review from 14 days to 28 days. I think that the Committee amendment seeks to change that to 21 days. Obviously, that is an improvement, but, frankly, the longer the time limit, the better. It was clear from the evidence that the Committee received that 14 days is completely inadequate. Survivors are dealing with complex trauma and may be accessing support, taking time to process decisions or information, or awaiting legal advice. How many times in this Building have we heard about the pressures on the judiciary and the judicial system? I do not think that a fortnight is sufficient in anybody's estimation. Trauma-informed flexibility is a necessity. I urge Members to support the longer extension in amendment No 21. I believe that the Victims and Survivors Forum supports it. Some people are calling for an even greater time limit, but I think that 28 days is sufficient.

Amendment Nos 12, 13 and 14 speak to cross-jurisdictional evidence and cooperation with authorities outside the North. If that work is already happening, that is, obviously, welcome, but putting it in the Bill would strengthen it.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Yes; go ahead.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Gerry, I absolutely agree with the intent of amendment No 13, which calls on the Executive Office to:

"take all reasonable steps to facilitate cooperation with the inquiry"

by other bodies. What would those "reasonable steps" look like?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

It is quite clear what they are. The phrase "reasonable steps" is used in most pieces of legislation. There is precedent for what that means.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Sure.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I appreciate that neither of you is on the Committee, and I apologise for jumping in, but we think that that could be some sort of memorandum of understanding that includes — I do not think that this has been mentioned today — the PSNI and other police services when it comes to any information that they have about crimes that have been committed.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Committee Chair. I am not on the Committee, but I have the right, as has every other MLA, to try to amend the Bill. I appreciate that clarity. If the amendment passes and could then be added to at Further Consideration Stage, I would certainly be open to working with the Member, or anybody, on that.

As I said, the general aim of the amendments is to strengthen the inquiry's ability to seek cooperation across borders and to expose and report non-cooperation where that occurs. The Member for North Belfast raised some concerns about that. Obviously, it is up to the House to vote for, which, hopefully, it will, or against the amendment, but, if it passes and there are gaps in it, it could be tightened up at Further Consideration Stage.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Yes.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member accept the shortcoming in his amendment, which states:

"(a) the nature of the evidence sought, and (b) the person, body or public authority from whom it was sought."

There is no subsection in that to articulate the reason why the evidence did not come forward. That may be wilful withholding by an institution that is, rightly, publicised, but it may be a victim or a survivor who does not want that evidence to be publicised, and they would then be put on the same level as an institution that refused to provide evidence, with individuals' names being published alongside those of institutions. Have you thought about that?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for that. That is not my reading of the amendment at all, but, again, if that is his reading, I am happy to seek an amendment at Further Consideration Stage.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

In one second, yes. It mentions the body or public authority from whom it was sought. It does not mention the person who requested it — the victim and survivor information. Again, if the Member is content with the general aim of the amendment, vote for it. If he wants to discuss what is normally called a tidying-up amendment or a strengthening amendment, I will be happy to look at it.

Was it the Chair who asked for an intervention?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way again. He and other Members will be aware that there has been a long-running process through which victims and survivors have given testimony to the truth recovery independent panel. They were engaged in that process on the understanding that they could make written submissions and oral submissions and could be invited to the inquiry. I think that the point that the Member for North Belfast is making is possibly redundant, in that I do not think that people who are victims and survivors will be compelled to give evidence. There will be a process that is trauma-informed, and I fully agree with Gerry in that I think that the amendment speaks to institutions or public bodies that may withhold evidence.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I agree with the Member. Was the Member for North Belfast looking to come in?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Can we distinguish between us? There are two Members for North Belfast.

[Laughter.]

Can you talk about the only Member for North Belfast who has worked on the Bill from the start? Phillip came later.

Everyone has rights under article 2 of the ECHR. As Paula said, we all had to go through trauma-informed training. It is to make sure that there is a clear distinction between an institution or a body that is refusing and an individual. There is a difference between "won't" and "can't". That is the difference here. I do not agree with the concerns of Phillip, the other great Member for North Belfast, and I do support the intention of your amendment. For clarity, that is also our understanding of your amendment.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank one of the five Members for North Belfast for that. That was my reading of it. Again, I am not claiming to know everything. I am not that arrogant. If there is strengthening to be done at Further Consideration Stage, I will be happy to consider that, and I am sure that the House will. Obviously, there are also GDPR protections more generally.

We know that the transfer of women and babies between jurisdictions was a defining feature of the system, as Members have said.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

In one second, yes. We know that some records are held in the Republic and in religious archives, where religious institutions have shown little appetite for transparency. The inquiry is to do justice to the full truth and cannot be hamstrung at the border. Abuse and the transfer of people did not stop at the border.

I give way to the Member on my right — sorry, the Minister.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

Thank you very much. This is to reflect a concern. The wording of the amendment is that public bodies and individuals "must", and there is no discretion as the amendment is drafted. That is where there is a degree of concern because, as the Member will appreciate, legislation is blunt and is black and white, so it may not necessarily afford the discretion for the inquiry chairperson to exercise. That is the slight concern, and that may be something that we can address in the Bill's next stage rather than right now.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I appreciate that. Some of it is interpretation, and, if it needs to be strengthened or added to, I am not precious about it. I am precious about organisations that are not coming forward with information being held to account. My interest is in that being done in the best way possible. I am not precious in that regard, but obviously I am precious about the principle. I am happy to work with the junior Minister, the Executive Office and the Committee if an extra amendment is needed. I am not sure whether it is.

Amendment No 16 allows the chairperson to order the publication of a report under section 18 at any time if it is considered to be in the public interest. Obviously, survivors cannot afford to wait years, nor should they wait years, for findings to be released in a single block at the end of a lengthy and traumatic process. Modular interim reporting, particularly where findings relate to specific institutions, gives survivors and families a right to know without delay. Publication in the public interest should be at the chairperson's discretion, and I hope and trust that it will be. That is right, and I urge Members to support it.

I commend my amendments to the House.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call junior Minister Reilly to respond to the debate. Junior Minister, you will be aware that we may have to interrupt you to allow the Business Committee to meet in the break before Question Time, but, if you are happy to commence, please do so.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Yes, thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to interject if we need to take a break. That is absolutely fine.

This is a significant moment. The issues addressed in the Bill reflect a shameful part of our past. Today marks an important step in acknowledging the stigma, trauma and loss of identity that has been endured by victims and survivors. While we cannot undo the harm or restore the years that have been lost, we can make sure that what was once hidden is now brought into the light with honesty and dignity. The Bill is not only about systems or records; it is about restoring dignity. It is about acknowledging the truth and finally hearing those voices.

For many, this moment has taken a lifetime, and some are no longer here to see it, which places a clear responsibility on all of us to get this right. Today is important, but it is not the end. We must recognise not only the suffering that has been endured but the remarkable courage that has been shown by survivors. This is about lives that were interrupted and a truth that has long been denied. Today's debate is about amendments, and the Final Stage debate will be an opportunity to reflect on the legislation and all those who got us to this point. However, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to take a few moments to acknowledge those who, by their participation and scrutiny, helped to make the Committee Stage such a meaningful process.

First, and most importantly, I thank all the victims and survivors who campaigned and contributed to the process. That includes all of those who, many years ago, started the Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice group. Secondly, we extend our sincere thanks to all who contributed and participated in the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum and the Committee evidence process. We are pleased that many survivors are able to join us here in person, but there are many who are watching online. Finally, place on record our appreciation to the Committee, its Chairperson and members, its officials and the Bill Office for the constructive and thoughtful way in which they engaged with the Executive on this legislation, for the manner in which the Committee conducted its scrutiny and evidence sessions and for its willingness to fit in extra sessions. I thank you for the comments about our officials, and we reiterate our thanks to them as they have been exceptional throughout the process.

I will now turn to the business at hand and the amendments that relate to the inquiry. A total of 24 tabled amendments relate to the inquiry, and the Department and Executive have considered them carefully. I will consider each amendment and speak to all of them, outlining our position and our reasoning. I thank all Members who have so far contributed to the debate, spoken of personal experiences and made the debate as reflective as it could possibly be. So, thank you for your contributions.

Amendment No 1 requires that the terms of reference for the inquiry be published no later than six months after the Bill becomes an Act. We consider that to be a welcome addition. That sets a clear and reasonable time frame to provide the detailed terms of reference outside the Bill, while allowing time for consideration of the truth recovery independent panel's report and for the chairperson to be consulted, which is required by the legislation. I am sure that we all agree that victims and survivors, as was mentioned, have waited far too long to get to this point, and six months is an appropriate upper time limit. The amendment helps to provide certainty and time for the consultation.

I turn to amendment No 2. We recognise that the Committee's proposed amendment seeks to specify categories such as private hospitals, clergy and businesses in relation to other persons within the Bill. To reassure the House, the Bill, as introduced, is already sufficiently flexible to include adoption agencies, baby homes, private hospitals, private nursing homes, cross-border transfers, either as a pathway in practice of a prescribed institution, or as another institution. However, we recognise that the amendment will provide further assurance and clarity on the types of institutions that the inquiry can include within its investigation. We have listened carefully to survivors and to the Committee on the issue and understand the importance of the information and accept its presence in clause 2.

Amendment No 3 has been tabled by the Department. It relates to the "relevant persons" as defined in clause 4 of the Bill. It seeks to make clear that the experiences of those who became pregnant while resident in a workhouse are within the scope of the inquiry. That was mentioned by Paula and others, who felt that including that was very important.

I turn to amendment No 4. The Bill as introduced provided for either a single chairperson or a chairperson with one or more panel members. Again, during the evidence sessions, the Committee and other contributors expressed strong views that a multidisciplinary inquiry panel would better support the inquiry chairperson and bring a greater breadth of expertise to that complex and sensitive area of investigation. We have listened carefully to those views and, in recognition of them, tabled amendment No 4, which will make sure that the inquiry panel consists of a chair and at least one additional panel member.

Amendment Nos 5 to 7 relate to clause 9 and were tabled by the Committee. They replace the term "assessors" with "expert advisers". We are content with that amendment and understand the Committee's view that that better reflects the role encompassed by individuals who will provide specialist advice and expertise in the inquiry. Related amendments to support that change — amendment No 18 to clause 22, amendment No 19 to clause 25 and amendments Nos 23 and 24 to clause 29 — have been tabled by the Department. Those additional amendments will ensure that there is consistency and clarity across the Bill.

Amendment No 8, which was tabled by the Committee, relates to clause 10 of the Bill. We consider that that amendment will provide an opportunity for the chairperson's decision about the membership of the advisory panel to be informed by the wider range of experience available in the inquiry panel, which we welcome. We heard strong support for the advisory panel during the evidence sessions. However, we are also mindful that that is a matter for the inquiry panel to consider. It is important to remember that the inquiry panel plays a pivotal role in the investigation, and we must ensure that it is afforded the independence necessary to carry out its work effectively. It must have the confidence of the majority of victims and survivors, which is why it is best for the inquiry to exercise that power.

Amendment No 9 relates to clause 11. That departmental amendment reflects the evidence presented by the Committee, in that Ministers must make an oral statement in the House in the event that they notify the chairperson that they intend to suspend the inquiry in line with the provision in subsection 1 of the clause. An oral statement would clarify to the House the reason for such a suspension and provide greater democratic accountability. While we hope that that provision will never have to be used, it creates an important role for the House, which we hope that Members will endorse.

Deputy Speaker, if you do not mind, I will stop there.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, junior Minister, for your cooperation.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the setting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue following Question Time, when junior Minister Reilly will resume her contribution.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.58 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Questions 7 and 11 have been withdrawn.

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

1. Mr McNulty asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any efforts that have been made to provide Northern Ireland with a unique Internet Protocol address to facilitate full coverage of Irish broadcasting and alleviate geoblocking. (AQO 3584/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The geoblocking of RTÉ content in the North is unacceptable and should be brought to an end. The Irish Government have the power to do more to address the issue, and I believe that they should engage more with the British Government, regulators, broadcasters and internet service providers to help identify and deliver a solution to that unfair practice.

I understand that there has been some correspondence on the matter between the British and Irish Governments. My predecessor and I have raised the issue with both Governments, and I am hopeful that a solution will be agreed as soon as possible so that all RTÉ content is available to all citizens in Ireland.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer. RTÉ is not blocking it; it is a territorial block. On that front, Minister, people are infuriated when they turn on the TV and cannot watch the soccer, the golf or a miniseries. To eliminate geoblocking on the island, broadcasting rights for sporting events must be sold on an all-island basis. Have you had any discussions with FIFA, UEFA, the PGA and other broadcasters and internet service providers to ensure that broadcasting rights are sold on an island of Ireland basis?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. As he knows, broadcasting rights are sold on a territorial basis. Broadcasters often hold the rights to show certain TV shows and sporting events only within a defined jurisdiction, so, to comply with their licensing agreements, they then restrict their broadcasts. Technically, programmes can reach the North, but broadcasters are legally required to block the content in order to avoid breaching their rights agreements.

One potential solution is to have a unique Internet Protocol address for the North. That could help resolve the issues, but I do not have the vires to do that myself. I therefore continue to engage with the British Government and the Irish Government on trying to find a way forward so that people here can enjoy programmes that are broadcast in the South.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

It is welcome to hear about your proactivity with the British and Irish Governments to try to redress the anomaly. You will be aware that Sinn Féin introduced a Bill in Dáil Éireann to address geoblocking: will you give us an assessment of that Bill?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I welcome the fact that colleagues in the South have tried to address the issue through the Broadcasting (All Ireland Service) (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced in Dáil Éireann in June 2025. The Bill seeks to address geoblocking by requiring public service broadcasters to make every reasonable effort to extend availability across the island. It also highlights the role of the Irish Government and Coimisiún na Meán in working to overcome the licensing barriers that underpin many of the restrictions that we are talking about.

The Bill recognises and reflects a growing demand that audiences in the North should not be excluded from national broadcasting. In that context, I appreciate the efforts of colleagues in the South and their contribution to the policy debate. The principles are being carefully considered as part of a wider Irish Government review of broadcasting that is now under way. I am hopeful that we will see some progress on the issue.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Minister, two weeks ago, you launched a consultation on an internal departmental Irish language policy: when will you launch a similar consultation for Ulster Scots?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I recently met the Ulster-Scots commissioner, and work is under way in the Department alongside the commissioner to inform the development of a policy for the Department.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

2. Mr Delargy asked the Minister for the Economy for an update of her visit to the SelectUSA Investment Summit. (AQO 3585/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

A few weeks ago — earlier in the month — I led a mission of six local businesses to the SelectUSA Investment Summit in Maryland, which is the biggest foreign direct investment event in the United States. It is the first time that Invest NI client companies have participated in SelectUSA and represents an important milestone.

Participating companies were drawn from the construction sector, the advanced engineering and manufacturing sector, the financial sector and the professional and business services sector, and they included O&S Doors, Smiley Monroe, Factory Automation Systems Technologies (FAST), Environmental Products and Services Ltd (EPAS), NHL Cylinders and Adepta Partners Ltd. The mission supported companies considering establishing or expanding a physical presence in the US through sales, manufacturing partnerships or investment-led growth. The summit proved to be a highly productive week for the companies, creating high-value opportunities to build partnerships and accelerate growth.

During the visit, alongside Invest NI, I met companies and engaged with governors from several states to discuss the contribution of businesses from the North and the strength of our economic relationship. In Virginia and Washington, I met business, civic and political leaders to identify opportunities for investment and partnership and to support companies exploring entry into the US market. I held a meeting with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General for International Trade at the Department of Commerce, where I had the opportunity to outline the impact of US tariffs on businesses here and to promote the dual market access position.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her answer. It is reassuring to hear that trade continues to exist in traditional bases in Irish America and beyond and that it continues to grow in spaces where it has not done so before. Will the Minister provide an update on some of the successes of the recent trade missions?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for that question. Since taking on the Department for the Economy in February 2024, my predecessor Conor Murphy and I have undertaken overseas missions and trips to progress trade, investment and tourism opportunities. The outcomes of trade and investment missions often take time to fully materialise, and Invest NI continues to work closely with the participating companies, actively monitoring their progress and providing support in the months following each of those missions. That ongoing engagement helps businesses to strengthen their presence in those key markets and to inform their decisions. For example, as a direct result of the trade mission that Conor Murphy led in September 2024 to Chicago and Toronto, I have announced that Belfast-based firms The Foundation and Creative Media have secured contracts worth over £200,000, while Seedling and Jo Hopkins Consulting signed a new distribution agreement expanding their reach into North America.

The first all-island trade mission to Singapore FinTech Festival took place in November 2024. That mission, which was supported by Invest NI, Enterprise Ireland and the Industrial Development Agency (IDA), showcased 14 companies from across the island. Following that mission, Belfast-based Fern Software secured two multimillion-pound contracts.

During my visit to the States in March 2025, I announced the international success of Belfast-based Artemis Technologies. Invest NI has been a key partner in helping to facilitate Artemis to grow its exports. I was delighted to welcome its multimillion-dollar deal in the US market. The Department remains committed to ensuring that all international engagements deliver long-term economic benefits and sustainable growth.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The Minister recognises that Invest Northern Ireland remains the leader in attracting foreign direct investment to Northern Ireland. Given that, Minister, why have you not responded to my question for written answer of 15 March, in which I asked how many names came forward to you from your officials for appointment to the board of Invest Northern Ireland? Why have you not supplied that figure, when you took the decision to appoint two Sinn Féin members to the board? What have you got to hide?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I will endeavour to get that question for written answer responded to as expeditiously as possible. I am not sure why the answer has not been with the Member prior to this point; I try to get my responses out as quickly as possible, so I will check on that.

The Member will be aware that there were a considerable number of applications to the Invest NI board competition.

A considerable number of people got through to the interview stage. From memory, 19 people were recommended for appointment, which is considerably more than the available places on the board. I am happy to furnish the Member with the information to confirm that.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

3. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the support scheme for domestic electricity customers. (AQO 3586/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and the Treasury both confirmed in writing on four occasions — 13 March, 18 March, 27 March and 30 April — that the Treasury funding is annually managed expenditure (AME). Therefore, it can only be used for a scheme that is comparable to the one operating in Britain; it cannot be repurposed for any other objective.

The scheme will provide a reduction in electricity bills of around £30 per household per year over a three-year period. My Department has approved a business case for approximately £85 million. Department of Finance officials undertook an accelerated review of the business case. That has now been submitted to the Treasury for approval so that the required AME funding can be secured. Subject to the necessary approvals and legislation being in place, which we expect to happen before the summer recess, and to allow time for the suppliers to make the required operational changes, I intend to apply the discount from September. With household electricity use tending to increase after the summer period, we want the scheme to be as impactful as possible for households.

I am working with Community Foundation NI on a campaign to encourage people who do not need the discount to donate the £30 to a fuel poverty charity. I intend to involve the Consumer Council and consumer advocates, including Community Foundation NI, when developing communication on that for consumers.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, in the absence of flexibility from the British Government, is there anything that you can do to ensure that some of the funding goes to people who are in fuel poverty?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for that question. I am on record several times as saying — and I think that there is consensus across the Chamber — that this is not the scheme that we would have designed, as we would have wanted to target those in most need. The constraints have been imposed by the British Government because of their scheme design.

I am keen to explore any way that we can to support people who are in fuel poverty. I met with Community Foundation NI, and we are working to develop an effective communications campaign to encourage people who feel that they do not need the £30 credit to voluntarily donate it to a fuel poverty charity. That matter was raised by the Chair of the Economy Committee at the last Question Time. We intend, as I said, to work with the Consumer Council and other consumer advocates to develop a communications plan on that. Applying the discount in September, when the summer is over, will, hopefully, be more impactful for people because electricity use starts to increase going into the autumn. That will be a better time for people to receive the support. It also gives us a bit more time to develop an awareness-raising campaign to let people know how they can donate the £30 to those who need it more.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

What bids did the Minister make to the Executive to increase the funding for support, given that the entire support scheme is funded by His Majesty's Government?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I have emphasised on many occasions that the scheme that we put in place had to be comparable to the scheme in Britain. In the scheme that we have brought forward, we have managed to remove from bills certain charges for the NIRO scheme. Alongside Executive colleagues, we continue to make the case that we need more support for people who have been impacted by rising energy costs as a result of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The Communities Minister is working to push out a scheme as soon as possible with the £17 million that came from the British Government. The Member will be aware that the Executive agreed to top up that funding. We will continue to make the case for more funding, but, unfortunately, this scheme has to be delivered in the way that it is being delivered.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Minister, people are really struggling with their energy bills. I appreciate that any further reductions to those would need UK Treasury involvement. The other way to look at this is to reduce the amount of energy that we use in the first place. Is the Minister looking at grants or interest-free loans that would incentivise people to improve their houses to use less energy and, therefore, keep more money in their pockets?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I completely agree that the way to reduce your energy bills is to reduce the amount of energy that you use. Over the past couple of years, we have supported the NI sustainable energy programme, which is targeted towards lower-income households. To date, that has helped over 2,500 people to improve their energy efficiency and reduce their energy bills.

The Member will also know that tackling fuel poverty and domestic energy efficiency is a cross-cutting issue between my Department and the Department for Communities. We lead specifically on heat policy and are in the process of developing a domestic energy efficiency and low-carbon heat programme to replace the sustainable energy programme. The scheme design is at its final stage and will be published in the coming weeks. Work will then be progressed with a consultation to seek input and feedback on the options around future financial support. Since the British Government published their warm homes plan a number of weeks ago, it has become evident that the use of financial transactions capital funding for low-interest loans will form part of that future policy, and we will be keen to explore how we can support that work. Obviously, we have to do that on a cross-departmental basis. My officials will continue working with DESNZ colleagues to make sure that we avail ourselves of any imminent support — the Member will be aware of GB Energy and the support that is expected to flow there — as much as possible.

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

Minister, whether it is AME —. In response to your colleague, you talked about budget inflexibility from the Treasury, and Stephen Dunne asked about a bid to the Executive. Is it not the truth that all of this is academic if there is not an agreed Executive Budget? Your Executive and the Finance Minister have failed to get one agreed, so, with regard to energy support and all of the other pressures in your Department, what are you doing to plan for the contingency of no Budget being agreed by the Executive?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I am sure that he will recognise that the financial constraints that the Executive are under do not put us in a position to be able to deliver the public services that we want and need to be able to deliver, while also supporting people with the cost of living. That is why, along with my Executive colleagues, we continue to make the case for a fairer funding settlement for people here. That work is ongoing and hopefully, in the next short period, will be fruitful.

As the Member will be aware as Chair of the Finance Committee, there are contingency arrangements in place, which, in the unfortunate situation that we are in, allow the use of up to 95% of the cash budget for last year by permanent secretaries. Advice has been given in that regard. I do not want to be in that situation. I want us to have an agreed Budget. Every member of the Executive wants us to have an agreed Budget. That is why we continue to make the case, why we have been working on that for a number of months and why, I believe, we are making good progress and, hopefully, will see a fruitful solution in the very near future.

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

4. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the ‘good jobs’ employment rights Bill. (AQO 3587/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The 'good jobs' Bill is the biggest upgrade to our employment legislation since the Good Friday Agreement. It contains numerous important advances for workers' rights. It will address the exploitative use of zero-hours contracts, give people leave to care for a loved one, provide paid leave to parents whose newborn baby requires neonatal care, ensure that workers get their tips, strengthen flexible working and make it easier for people to engage with trade unions.

The draft Bill is with the Executive for approval for introduction into the Assembly. At yesterday's trade union rally here, colleagues from all parties spoke in favour of measures within the 'good jobs' Bill, so I am optimistic that the Bill will be approved when the Executive meet next Thursday and introduced in the Assembly shortly thereafter to allow for the scrutiny of the Bill to commence.

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

Minister, there is no question that it is an important Bill, but it has been subject to considerable delays in your Department. It is six months late going to the Executive, for instance. It now seems to have been stuck with the Executive for the past two weeks. It is an extensive Bill that gives parental leave and carer's leave, ends zero-hours contracts and deals with employee representation. Minister, are you serious about the legislation? Why is it taking so long to get it to the next stage? Is this simply another bluff by Sinn Féin?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question, I think. I am very serious about the legislation. Considerable work has gone into drafting the Bill, and considerable engagement has been undertaken to get us to the point of having the draft. I do not consider the time that it has taken to be a lengthy delay, as the Member characterised it. I consider it to have been time well spent in developing legislation that meets the needs of businesses and workers, which is what I committed to do when I published the proposals last year. I said that we would continue to work, particularly in two areas where further work was required: zero-hours contracts and trade union access. Since we first announced the Bill until now, over 100 engagements have taken place to inform what is now with the Executive. That was work that was well done and needed, and I am hopeful that, when the Bill is introduced in the Assembly, with all the important measures that we have spoken about, people will reflect, see the detail for themselves and recognise that we have tried to strike the right balance. The Economy Committee has an important role thereafter in scrutinising the Bill, and the Assembly will ultimately decide what is in the Bill.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, I know how much work you have put into the Bill. I know that it is very close to your heart and is legislation that will improve the lot of workers across the North. I am sure that you will agree with me that it is important that the Bill does not face further delay at the Executive and is brought to the Assembly as soon as possible so that the Economy Committee can carry out its important scrutiny.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for the question. Yes, I agree that we want to get the Bill into the Assembly as quickly as possible so that scrutiny can commence. I believe that there is plenty of time left in the mandate to scrutinise and pass the Bill. However, the sooner the Bill is passed to the Committee, the sooner that work can commence. Workers and families across the North are struggling with the cost of living, and the Bill will help to better balance work and family life and ensure that people are seeing those advances, whatever they may be — whether it is making sure that young people and those working in hospitality receive the tips that they have earned; supporting people to move off zero-hours contracts into more secure banded-hours contracts; or the important family leave that is included in the Bill. The Bill will make a real difference to ordinary people, and I look forward to it coming to the Executive and being introduced in the Assembly.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Why did the Minister fail to meet her self-imposed deadline of introducing the Bill last year?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I did not have a deadline to introduce the Bill last year. I think that we said that we hoped to have a Bill by January this year. We were perhaps a bit ambitious in respect of the amount of work that needed to be done and the level of engagement that we wanted to undertake. As I indicated earlier, when I announced the proposals, I committed to engaging extensively, and we then undertook that engagement. That was time well spent and has helped us to craft a Bill that will hopefully be recognised as one that strikes the right balance between supporting employers and helping workers. That is what we all want to see.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

5. Mr Buckley asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any discussions she has had with the UK Government and Irish Government in relation to the potential recoupling of the single electricity market with the Great Britain energy market. (AQO 3588/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The current trading arrangements in respect of our energy markets are a direct result of Brexit, which removed Britain from the EU's internal electricity market and introduced less efficient trading processes between Britain and EU-aligned markets, including the single electricity market. I support efforts to improve electricity trading arrangements in the interests of consumers. More efficient arrangements would be consistent with how such markets were originally designed to operate, so I welcome the ongoing UK-EU discussions on a potential electricity agreement to improve cross-border trading arrangements. As the Member will know, any change will require agreement between the British Government and the EU; it is not directly in the control of my Department. However, we are engaging constructively with the British Government to ensure that our interests are fully reflected in those discussions.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I would expect, wholly, that, at a time of energy crisis, you, as Minister, would look proactively at any potential option that has the ability to reduce energy costs for businesses and consumers who, in Northern Ireland, continue to pay some of the highest energy costs anywhere in Europe. Evidence suggests that re-coupling with the GB market would result in a 10% reduction in energy bills for consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Will you commit to bringing forward a paper to the Executive that sets out the economic benefits, legal obstacles and timescales for any future discussions?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. Certainly, I want us to be able to address effectively the challenges that people face with their energy bills. I am happy to look at what we can do to progress that. As I indicated, the type of engagement that is required is between the British Government and the EU. That is part of the arrangements that they discussed last year in improving relations. Certainly, I would support that, with the desire to bring down costs for consumers and businesses. I am happy to look at what we can do to identify the barriers that are there. As I said, the power does not rest solely with my Department. However, clearly, we want to do as much as possible. We are, through the energy strategy, looking at how we can ensure that, in the future, we have more affordable, sustainable and secure energy production here. We will look at any option to make that a reality.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister set out the benefits of the single electricity market (SEM), particularly its role in supporting consumers?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for that question. The single electricity market has delivered benefits for consumers and businesses across the island. It enables electricity to be traded efficiently on an all-island basis, strengthens our security of supply and supports renewable energy generation. However, I recognise that households and businesses here continue to face significant pressure on their energy bills. I continue to engage with North/South and east-west partners, including our North/South regulators, to ensure that the single electricity market evolves in a way that better reflects the benefits of the energy transition away from fossil fuels and actually delivers real outcomes for consumers.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, you will be fully aware that, within the SEM, there is a requirement that part of the bill is for infrastructure improvements. Not only are those infrastructure improvements not being made but they will not be made for a considerable time. Will the Minister instruct her Department to conduct an investigation into how much those funds are and ensure that, if there have been significant overpayments, that money will come back to consumers? That may go a long way to, let us say, de-risking the ISEM.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. He is familiar with how our energy system operates across the island. We do need to look at the market structure and the costs that are applied. Certainly, I am happy to look at that further through my Department. It impacts on consumers. We want consumers to benefit from the arrangements that we have in place. We want to see progress when it comes to our infrastructure development and see that investment happening. We need to get that balance right and have secure and affordable energy.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

With regard to the connection agreement charging structure, the Minister will be aware that, on 26 November 2025, she made a decision on fairer grid connection costs. At that stage, the Utility Regulator was working on modification of the NIE Networks licensing system, which was to be followed by the publication of a new statement of connection charges. Can the Minister give an update on that and tell the House when that is likely to happen?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. The Utility Regulator has undertaken its work. I am happy to write to the Member with the full detail, but we anticipate the new arrangements being in place before the end of June.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now move on to topical questions.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T1. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister for the Economy, who has repeatedly outlined the four pillars that underpin her economic vision, whether she is failing to deliver on that economic vision, given the lack of progress across the board, in that renewable energy remains stalled and the renewable electricity price guarantee remains outstanding; the 'good jobs' Bill is stuck at the Executive table; productivity continues to lag; jobs in higher education are being cut left, right and centre; and regional balance is talked about but not delivered. (AQT 2361/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question, but I do not agree with her characterisation. Our economy here, on a macro level, continues to outperform Britain on economic growth, exports and wage increases. Good jobs increased by 1·5 percentage points between 2024 and 2025. On regional balance, we have seen a closing of the gap between the lowest-paid and highest-paid council areas. We have also seen considerable improvements in regional balance through increased university places at Magee, by 22%, and at the Coleraine campus, by 12%. Since February 2024, 20,000 additional jobs have been created here. Our economy is therefore performing relatively well. There are certainly headwinds and challenges coming at us, but I continue, in my own role and through working with Executive colleagues, to address those challenges.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, we know that an election is not too far off, and we are probably at the point at which the focus sometimes shifts from delivery to division and delay. How can you tell businesses how good it is here if they are feeling the pinch? Businesses say to us that progress here is slow and productivity is lagging behind and that they need more support —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— from the Department for the Economy. That is not me speaking but them.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. I consistently engage with our business community. I recognise that there are challenges coming at the business community, many of which are global, geopolitical challenges that are not within our control. That is why it is important that we try to control what we can and that we continue to try to make progress on what the Executive have agreed and prioritised in our Programme for Government. That is what guides me on the things that I am trying to progress in my Department, such as the economic vision and the progress under its four pillars, which you referred to in your question. We as an Executive need to continue to focus on those things.

My focus continues to be on delivery. I will not be distracted by electioneering. I intend to continue delivering up until 31 March next year.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

T2. Mr Martin asked the Minister for the Economy, in light of her recent comments on the £50 million growth deal for the defence sector, and given that Thales NI in east Belfast has been manufacturing next-generation light anti-tank weapon (NLAW) missile systems and exporting them to support the defence of Ukraine, whether she objects to such jobs being situated in Northern Ireland. (AQT 2362/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. My position on the militarisation agenda and on investment in defence above and beyond other priorities is well on record; I make no apologies for that. We should invest in things that make people's lives better, but I also want to see us have good jobs here. I see no contradiction in that position.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I am not sure that I really understood the Minister's answer. John Locke, in his book 'Second Treatise of Government', said that the first and core responsibility of any democratic Government is to protect their citizens. Does the Minister accept that fulfilling that responsibility requires armed forces and a defence sector? Will she now welcome that £50 million investment in the defence sector by His Majesty's Government?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I will say that I respect the fact that Governments have to secure and defend their people; that is not in question. I object to an agenda of militarisation, however, where we invest in arming up and wars of aggression. I do not support that. It is not what we should prioritise in public spending. I want to see investment in public services and things that will make people's lives better. I see no contradiction there.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

T3. Dr Aiken asked the Minister for the Economy what action she is taking to stamp out antisemitism at our universities. (AQT 2363/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. The Member has corresponded with me on the issue in questions for written answer. As he will be aware, our universities are autonomous institutions. I reject all forms of racism and discrimination. Institutions have responsibilities to prioritise stamping that out, and I support the efforts in that regard.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her comments about antisemitism, but she will be aware that, on 5 May, the Prime Minister said:

"We already expect universities to set out clear disciplinary consequences for antisemitism, and to enforce them."

He also said:

"we are calling on universities to demonstrate action."

And, if they do not, they are to conduct an audit and report on those antisemitism issues. Will the Minister support what the Prime Minister says about Queen's University taking action now to stamp out antisemitism on its campus?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The Member will be aware that higher education policy is devolved and that, as I have indicated, universities are autonomous institutions. If there are concerns about particular issues — I have not had them reflected to me — I encourage him to take them up with the vice chancellor.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

T4. Mrs Mason asked the Minister for the Economy to provide an assessment of how changes to steel tariff regimes affect the North's manufacturing and construction industries. (AQT 2364/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. That issue has been raised with me by representatives of our manufacturing and construction industries here, and my Department has been monitoring the evolving trade regimes in Britain and in the EU. We have been engaging with local businesses to identify impacts and the risks that come with those.

On 15 April, I wrote to my counterpart in Britain, the Minister of State, Chris Bryant, to raise concerns about how the new quota arrangements under the British Government's steel strategy could affect our businesses downstream in the North. I have been clear in my engagement with the British Government that our economy and our downstream manufacturing and construction industries cannot be collateral damage in policy choices that are being made to protect the wider primary steel sector in Britain.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat.

[Translation: Thank you.]

As you rightly said, Minister, it is a serious issue for the sector, and I am glad to hear of the engagement with the British Government. What engagement have you had with the sector on the issue?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As I indicated, I have had correspondence from representatives of manufacturing and construction here. My officials have met industry representatives to examine the impacts that they are highlighting, including cost pressures, supply constraints and, ultimately, employment risks. In parallel, departmental analysts have examined our import and trade data to assess the scale of the exposure that is faced by businesses here. That information has been shared with business representatives. Support and guidance have been published on nibusinessinfo.co.uk.

My officials have also met counterparts in the South to better understand the potential all-island impacts resulting from the tariff changes, and I have discussed the issues with my counterparts in the South and in Britain. I will continue to ensure that engagement with the steel industry is maintained, that we gather that evidence from businesses and that the analytical work that has been undertaken informs the ongoing discussions on the practical outworking of the new arrangements that are being proposed.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

T5. Mr Carroll asked the Minister for the Economy whether she has heard the news that universities have allegedly cut the number of places for people who want to study speech and language therapy, which he heard for the first time last week when he held a meeting with the Education Authority, alongside parents and grandparents of children who go to the speech and language unit in St Teresa's Primary School. (AQT 2365/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. It is not something that has been brought to my attention, but I am happy to look into it further. I am not sure in which institution the proposed cuts are being made. I will also engage with the Health Minister on the issue, because some of it, such as places on allied health courses, may fall to him. I am happy to look into the issue further for the Member.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I appreciate that, Minister. The unit at St Teresa's only runs to Key Stage 1, and the parents want to extend it until primary 7, as with others.

It would be remiss of me not mention the wonderful Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists event that was held in the Chamber earlier with the wonderful May McFettridge. Some good jokes were told, and — I am looking at the MLAs in the Building — there were some awful ones as well. Will the Minister look into the issue that I raised? Will she pay tribute to every speech and language therapist who works in our schools and do all that she can to protect those courses, if they are indeed under threat?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. Certainly, I am happy to associate myself with those remarks. Our speech and language therapists do an amazing job. The Member will be aware of the work that the Department is undertaking on post-19 special educational needs to ensure that we support our young people as they transition out of school and into other settings and on the support that is required across a range of disciplines for that. He will also be aware of the increase in demand for the services and the increasing number of young people who present with additional and complex needs. We need to ensure that we have professionals coming through who are able to support them. As I indicated to the Member, I am happy to look into that issue further and engage with my Executive colleagues on it.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

T6. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister for the Economy, having noted, following the recent announcement of significant job losses at Ulster University, the concern of sixth-form students who are doing their exams and are already engaged in the process, some of whom have been in touch with her, whether the Minister can share with those students any information on what courses will be available for them this September. (AQT 2366/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. At this point, my understanding is that there will be no impact on courses. I am happy to engage further with Ulster University. I understand that it has caused concern not only for university staff but for young people who are looking at their choices. As I indicated, that is my understanding of the situation. I am hopeful that that is the case, but I am happy to engage further with the university. If the Member wants to write to me, I would be happy to correspond with her.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her response. She will understand that, in rural constituencies, such as my South Down constituency, young people who are going to university anywhere have to look at arrangements for accommodation. I am really concerned that there is a perception out there that specific campuses — for example, Coleraine — might be adversely impacted. People are concerned about their accommodation and what they need to do. I am keen that there be some firm clarification for people as soon as possible, because we do not want to see areas such as Coleraine miss out on having a student population.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for that question. I am not aware of any impact on a particular campus. I, too, am concerned about the Coleraine campus, given that I live in that area and it is in my constituency. The university has been clear about its commitment to its multi-campus arrangements. The Member will also be aware, as a member of the Economy Committee, of the work that we are doing to understand the financial impact of the multi-campus model and to look at how the Department can reflect that and support the university as part of the budgetary process.

Obviously, we are still in the process of trying to get a better Budget settlement for the Executive as a whole. When it comes to my departmental budget and where I would like additional resource to go, my top priorities are our universities and colleges and Invest NI. I continue to make that case to my Executive colleagues, and, as an Executive, we continue to argue for a better Budget settlement from the British Government.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Burrows is not in his place.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

T8. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister for the Economy whether she will ensure that the Place-Name Project at Queen's University Belfast is funded to continue its important work. (AQT 2368/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that, following the announcement that the project was not going to continue, I intervened and engaged with Queen's University. The university has agreed that the project will continue, and I have committed that my Department will assume responsibility for funding it. The programme is important when it comes to the heritage of our local place names and the translation service.

It is really important that we ensure that a programme that is nearly 40 years old does not disappear, and that is why we have stepped in.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call junior Minister Reilly to resume her contribution.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I will pick up my remarks from where I left off earlier.

Amendment No 10 creates new clause 12A, which addresses the matter of seeking financial contributions from institutions. We are confident that the House fully recognises and supports the principle that those who are deemed responsible should contribute to a financial redress scheme. We are mindful of the experiences in other jurisdictions in securing contributions from institutions and from Whitehall. We have engaged with the Secretary of State and the Treasury in London in order to seek a meaningful contribution to the redress scheme, given the period of direct rule from 1973 onwards. Those discussions have not resulted in a contribution to date, which is extremely disappointing. As a result, the scheme will be funded from the Executive's block grant. We can, however, assure Members that we will continue to raise the matter with the Secretary of State and the British Government.

Let me be clear that this is neither a good nor a fair situation for us to be in. We strongly believe that there should be a line of accountability for those who are deemed to have caused harm, and we fully agree that they should make a contribution. We have also personally engaged on the issue with Irish and Scottish Government Ministers in the past few months, and our officials have considered the available options. However, as was reflected in earlier remarks, all jurisdictions have faced similar challenges. There is a clear consensus that contributions should be sought at the appropriate stage. However, significant legal challenges would arise from mandating contributions in legislation, particularly in advance of a formal investigation. We remain firmly committed to making sure that any investigation is fair and impartial and reflects the core principles of a human rights-based approach. That will be fundamental to securing meaningful contributions. We cannot and will not risk the passage of the Bill. We cannot introduce provisions that risk the Bill's legislative competence. With all that in mind, we tabled amendment No 10.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the junior Minister give way?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the junior Minister very much for her comments on seeking contributions not only from various organisations but from the United Kingdom Government and the Treasury. It is important for people to understand that, as is being said at this point, while the cost of compensation as a result of the Bill will fall to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the reality of life has been that, for many years, there was no Parliament or Assembly in this place. The United Kingdom Government Ministers were the people who were culpable and liable for the abuses that were going on when they were Secretaries of State or junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. Therefore, there is a very real argument to make the UK Government pay, and I trust that the Ministers will take that argument forward forcefully.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Absolutely. I fully concur with your remarks, Stewart. We have raised that issue continuously with the British Secretary of State and will continue to do so. You are absolutely right that during the period of direct rule, there were serious failings in this place. Those who were here and oversaw those failings should make contributions. The British Government are very much central to that. We will continue to press and make the case that they should contribute. As I said, people knew about what was going on.

New clause 12A will do two things. First, it proposes to include in the Bill an obligation on the Executive Office to:

"publish a report on a scheme to seek financial contributions from any prescribed institution, public body or other person in relation to which the inquiry determines that there were any systemic failings".

Secondly, it includes a provision that would enable voluntary contributions to be made more easily. For instance, clause 12A(3) and clause 12A(4) provide that, if a charity were to make a financial contribution under the scheme, that contribution would automatically be treated as being in furtherance of its charitable purposes and covered by its constitution, providing a public benefit, and being in the charity's interests. Those inclusions are helpful, as they provide charity trustees with more legislative certainty, should they decide to make a financial contribution to the scheme. That enabling provision is there to help organisations to make payments. It is not to avoid or stop payments being made. Any additional legislative provisions are helpful, as they provide trustees with more certainty.

Stewart, you made some comments earlier about the Charity Commission. Our officials have met the Charity Commission and the Department for Communities, both of which have a regulatory role for charities in clause 12A(3) and clause 12A(4). The Charity Commission has confirmed, after reviewing those subsections, that it is content with clause 12A's inclusion and wording. Taken together, that illustrates our shared commitment to seeking contributions.

Amendment No 11 to clause 15 is to make sure that, when considering whether to restrict access to the inquiry, the chairperson is required to take into account the potential impact of such a decision on the ability of any relevant person to participate in the inquiry. We are clear that the inquiry should operate on the basis of openness and transparency. The default position is disclosure, not restriction. Public access should be limited only where it is strictly and demonstrably necessary. The amendment is intended to provide clear reassurance to victims and survivors that their interests and participation will be properly considered in decisions relating to public access to the inquiry and its proceedings. Its inclusion in the Bill would reinforce our strong commitment to openness and transparency and would strengthen the framework within which the inquiry would operate.

Amendments Nos 12, 13 and 14 relate to clause 16. Amendment No 12 would mandate the chairperson to take "all reasonable steps" to obtain relevant information from outside this jurisdiction. Essentially, that is duplicative. At our appearance at the Committee for the Executive Office on 26 November 2025, we gave an undertaking that the cross-jurisdictional movement of women and children would be covered in the external terms of reference. I restate that commitment to the House today. Furthermore, the secondary legislation setting out the procedures to be adopted by the inquiry will closely follow the Inquiry Rules 2006, which require the inquiry to send written requests to anyone whom it wishes to produce a document or any other thing, irrespective of the jurisdiction. Similarly, for amendment No 13, once the terms of reference require the inquiry to investigate the facts concerning the cross-jurisdictional movement of women and children, it is incumbent on the Executive Office or, indeed, any other body here to facilitate the inquiry. We point to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that is being developed by officials in our Department with their counterparts in the Dublin Government with regard to sharing data that is relevant to the institutions and their pathways and practices.

Amendment No 14 would require the chairperson to report on all evidence requested but not received under clause 16 — not just cross-jurisdictional evidence — and report on those from whom it is sought. That would constitute a risk, however low, not least because it would compel the chairperson to make such reports even if there were a valid reason for not providing the evidence or not wishing to do so. For example, the information may not be available, or it could identify a specific victim, survivor or whistle-blower. As was mentioned earlier, that would force a report that mentions people who may not have wanted to participate in the process. It could also have GDPR implications. By way of reassurance, however, the chair will, in line with normal practice, be empowered to name and report those who fail to comply with a request or when required to provide information. We think that that approach is both fair and reasonable, however it is essential that the chair retains an appropriate degree of discretion. It is also worth mentioning that the power to compel was in the HIA inquiry but was not used. If Mr Carroll, who tabled amendment No 14, were minded not to move it today, we and our officials would be more than happy to work with him to bring forward a form of wording at Further Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 15, which is to clause 18, provides clarity and assurance that the chairperson of the inquiry may provide a series of interim or modular reports to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister before making their final report. The ability to provide interim and modular reports throughout would encourage timely reporting of inquiry findings. A modular approach to reporting in the inquiry could serve to assure those who may be advancing in age of the progress of the inquiry.

The effect of amendment No 16, which is to clause 19, would be that the chairperson could publish a report at any time without providing a copy to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, if it is considered in the public interest. The current provision allows for at least a two-week interval between Ministers receiving a copy of the report and its publication, or sooner if it is agreed between the chairperson and Ministers. It would, therefore, be entirely feasible for the chairperson to publish an urgent report within days of giving it to the Ministers, if they agreed. We also note that consideration of the public interest is an Executive function and is not one for the inquiry chairperson. It would simply be a matter of good governance that Ministers should be given an appropriate time to consider a response to an inquiry report that they have jointly asked to be held. Therefore, we do not feel that that amendment is necessary.

Amendment No 17 is to clause 20, which deals with how reports are to be laid in the Assembly. The amendment is from the Committee, and we very much welcome it.

Amendment No 20 is to clause 26 and was tabled by the Committee. It extends the period for submitting an application for judicial review from 14 days to 21 days. For context, the current requirement for 14 days follows the Inquiries Act 2005, where there is also a discretion to extend the period. We are keen to make sure that the inquiry proceeds in a timely manner for victims and survivors, and we also recognise that access to judicial reviews are a fundamental aspect of the inquiry process. Therefore, in our view, the Committee's amendment strikes an appropriate balance by providing additional flexibility while making sure that participants are not disadvantaged by overly restrictive timescales.

Amendment No 21 to clause 26, tabled by Mr Carroll, seeks to extend the period for applying for a judicial review from 14 days to 28 days. For the reasons given previously, we believe that the Committee's amendment No 20 strikes the right balance between fairness and timeliness.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way. That was a point that I raised in my contributions through intervention. I am really keen to tease out the Department and officials' thought processes around that. I would have thought that, in the very rare circumstances where a judicial review is required, with the pressure that is on a victim, you would want to give them as much time and space as possible. It should not stretch into months and months, but I would have thought that 28 days from 14 days would have been a fair approach. I am really interested to hear why the Department and officials think that 28 days is too much.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Again, as I mentioned before, we felt that 21 days strikes the right balance for victims and survivors without causing any more undue delay. The time of the judicial review starts from when the person is notified, not from when the decision is made. For the applicant, we believe that that is sufficient time for a judicial review to be brought forward. It also ensures that the inquiry is not unduly delayed, as I have mentioned before in respect of victims and survivors.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Minister give way?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will give way to Mr Brett and then Mr Carroll.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister agree that the Committee's amendment No 20, which proposes 21 days, goes further than the Inquiries Act 2005, which governs all public inquiries across the United Kingdom, and that, if we do agree an increase to 21 days, that will ensure that victims and survivors have the most appropriate and, indeed, the most generous time for a judicial review for a public inquiry anywhere in the UK?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am happy to give way to Mr Carroll.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you, Minister. To paraphrase, you said at the start that the legislation should be victim-focused, and we all agree on that. Do you recognise that the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum supports the time for a judicial review to be extended to at least 28 days, if not beyond that?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Absolutely. We initially had "14 days" in the Bill, but, when the amendments were tabled, particularly the Committee's amendment, we felt that 21 days would strike the right balance. I think that we all agree that victims and survivors should have to wait no longer than is necessary. As I said, it runs from the time that they are made aware, not from when the decision is made. We therefore felt that 21 days struck the right balance. On this occasion, we favour the Committee's amendment, but other Members have made their position clear.

The Committee's amendment No 22 to clause 27 would require the inquiry rules to include provision for the designation of core participants. The secondary legislation that we plan to introduce will be closely based on the inquiry rules of 2006, which already include provision for core participants. We recognise, however, that making that a requirement in the Bill is a valuable way to facilitate participation in the inquiry. We feel that that amendment would strengthen the participative nature of the inquiry and help make sure that victims and survivors' voices are heard.

Mr Gaston spoke about cooperation and ongoing cross-jurisdictional work, particularly at the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC). I can confirm that we have had regular engagement with other jurisdictions. I raised the matter at a previous NSMC plenary meeting, and it was discussed. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister raised it again at the plenary meeting two weeks ago, because we feel that cooperation in that area is vital. Joanne and I met Minister Foley from the Dublin Government to discuss their scheme, and we spoke about how we could all take learning from it, particularly on records and the movement of women and babies across the border. We welcome the MOU between the Taoiseach and Keir Starmer that was announced recently. We also met Kate Forbes from the Scottish Government, and our officials are in regular contact with their counterparts. We have therefore been engaging regularly. Joanne and I meet officials weekly to review continually where we are and to discuss how we can move forward. I hope that that reassures the House.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the junior Minister for giving way. I am conscious that she was about to close.

One issue that has frustrated our Committee not just on this matter but in our previous work is that, when we wrote to them, religious orders pointed to the fact that their headquarters were in Dublin and said that they were not accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I ask the junior Minister to note that that has frustrated us. We would like to think that a way through can be found so that they cannot use that excuse in the future.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That is a cause of frustration for us all, because, as I mentioned, those who are deemed to have caused serious harm to women and children should absolutely face the consequences of that, and they should pay.

That brings my remarks on the group of amendments about the inquiry to a close. I again acknowledge Members' thoughtful contributions, which have informed the debate. We have sought throughout the process to listen carefully to what victims and survivors have said, and, alongside victims, survivors and Members, we will continue with that work as the Bill progresses. I hope that that demonstrates our commitment to developing meaningful and responsive legislation for the many thousands of women and girls and their children, who are now adults, who were resident in mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses.

The inquiry provisions give effect to the ministerial commitments agreed through the truth recovery design panel, and survivors have been firmly placed at the centre. The provisions make sure than an independent and robust inquiry is capable of delivering the integrated investigation that survivors want and need. The amendments provide a clear structure for a timely, effective and focused inquiry to help establish what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. The Bill will provide a victim and survivor-centred process, with an advisory panel as a demonstration of that commitment. It will also make sure that the inquiry remains fair and independent. Taken together, the amendments will help make sure that the legislation delivers the truth, recognition and justice that victims and survivors deserve and have long waited for.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Junior Minister Reilly, thank you for that response.

I call the Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office to make a winding-up speech.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This group of amendments relates specifically to Part 1 of the Bill, which establishes the truth recovery public inquiry. I thank Members who have contributed to the debate on this group of amendments. Contributions have reflected a shared commitment to ensuring that the inquiry, most importantly, places victims and survivors at its centre. I will highlight some of the points that, I feel, are of most importance.

The inquiry is about truth, accountability, disclosure and justice. I would like to think that the memorandum of understanding that will go forward with the PSNI will demonstrate that, where the threshold has been met for potential criminal convictions, the PSNI will slot in quickly with diligence and urgency to ensure that those people are brought before the courts.

I appreciate Mr Carroll's amendments. In some ways, a lot of what he seeks to put in the Bill we discussed as a Committee, and we stressed our strength of feeling in the Committee report. I welcomed the junior Minister's suggestion or offer to sit down with him, specifically to discuss amendment No 14. It is something that we have not scrutinised as a Committee, and it is up to the mover of the amendment whether he wants to do that. If that is the case, we, as a Committee, would also like to be part of that conversation, junior Minister.

That is all I have to say at this stage.

Amendment No 1 agreed to.

Amendment No 2 made:

In page 2, line 30, at end insert—

"(6) In subsection (2), "other persons" includes but is not limited to private hospitals, private maternity homes and private nursing homes; general practitioners; social workers; clergy; and private businesses.". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Definition of “relevant persons”)

Amendment No 3 made:

In page 3, line 16. at end insert—

"(ia) a woman or girl who had become pregnant while she was under the care of the workhouse;". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (The inquiry panel)

Amendment No 4 made:

In page 3, line 35, leave out from "either" to end of line 36. — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 (Assessors)

Amendment No 5 made:

In page 6, line 8, leave out "assessors" and insert "expert advisers". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

Amendment No 6 made:

In page 6, line 10, leave out "assessor" and insert "expert adviser". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

Amendment No 7 made:

In page 6, line 14, leave out "assessor" and insert "expert adviser". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 (Advisory Panel)

Amendment No 8 made:

In page 6, line 16, after "chairperson" insert ", having consulted the other members of the inquiry panel,". — [Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office).]

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 (Power to suspend inquiry)

Amendment No 9 made:

In page 7, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

"(6) Where the First Minister and deputy First Minister give a notice under subsection (1), they must make an oral statement to the Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable.". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 10 made:

After clause 12 insert—

"Contributions to payments

12A.—(1) The Department must publish a report on a scheme to seek financial contributions from any prescribed institution, public body or other person in relation to which the inquiry determines that there were any systemic failings such as referred to in section 2(2)(a) or (c).

(2) For the purposes of this section, “financial contributions” means contributions towards the funding of any statutory scheme for the making of payments in connection with admission to, or treatment by, institutions, bodies or persons.

(3) Where a charity makes a financial contribution, the making of that contribution is to be treated for all purposes as—

(a) being in furtherance of the charity’s charitable purposes and consistent with its constitution,

(b) providing public benefit,

(c) not being contrary to the interests of the charity, and

(d) being within the powers exercisable by the charity trustees of the charity.

(4) Expressions used in subsection (3) have the same meaning as in the Charities Act (Northern Ireland)

2008.". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 (Restrictions on public access, etc.)

Amendment No 11 made:

In page 9, line 18, at end insert—

"(e) the extent to which any restrictions might impede the participation of relevant persons in the inquiry.". — [Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office).]

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 (Powers to require production of evidence)

Amendment No 12 made:

In page 10, line 34, at end insert—

"(8A) The chairperson must take all reasonable steps to obtain documents or other things from persons, bodies or public authorities outside Northern Ireland where such information appears to be materially relevant to the matters under investigation.". — [Mr Carroll.]

Amendment No 13 made:

In page 10, line 34, at end insert—

"(8A) The Executive Office must take all reasonable steps to facilitate cooperation with the inquiry by persons, bodies or public authorities outside Northern Ireland, including His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.". — [Mr Carroll.]

Amendment No 14 made:

In page 10, line 34, at end insert—

"(8A) Where evidence requested under this section is not provided, the inquiry must record and report—

(a) the nature of the evidence sought, and

(b) the person, body or public authority from whom it was sought.". — [Mr Carroll.]