Official Report: Tuesday 24 June 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up

Mr O'Toole: — of Northern Ireland, who have been failed —

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: — for far too long.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: I remind the Minister to speak through the Chair, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely, but I am exploring all those options.

Mr Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

Ms Kimmins: Apologies, a Cheann Comhairle

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

I have presented [Interruption.]

I have presented what my approach is. I have worked —. [Inaudible.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs Cameron (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I beg to move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I will speak on behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office at the Second Stage of this deeply significant and long-awaited Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na hAirí as an Bhille seo. Lá ró-thábhachtach atá ann.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Questions 12 and 14 have been withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

Minister, recommendation 15 states:

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

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

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

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

Mr Buckley: Answer the question. What about a verse?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Jonathan.

Mr Buckley: She will not answer questions.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Jonathan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have 60 seconds.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, that ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

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

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is a time for questions, Justin, not speeches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have less than a minute.

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

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Questions 6, 9 and 15 have been withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 6 has been withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 9 has been withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Nuala.

Mr Matthew O'Toole is not in his place, and question 15 — [Interruption.]

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

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go ahead, Matthew.

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

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

Mr Speaker: Deborah Erskine has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Infrastructure. I remind Members to keep their questions concise.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I will start by repeating my extreme disappointment in the decision that we received yesterday. It was a hugely disappointing day not just for me but, in the first instance, all the families and the Enough is Enough campaign, who have been extremely diligent and steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that the road is built. My first thoughts are with all those who have tragically lost loved ones on the road and those who are living with injuries as a result of collisions along the road.

It was a very detailed judgement, so it is important that we take time to carefully consider it in full, including any implications for the scheme and the Department's next steps. As I said, it is extremely detailed, and it was the first legal test for the Climate Change Act

and the climate action plan (CAP), the outworkings of which every Department will have to deal with.

Sorry, Mr Speaker, this is so disrespectful.

Mr Speaker: Minister, I hear a little noise, but carry on, because it should not be that disruptive.

Ms Kimmins: Given the context, Members should be respectful.

I am determined to engage and we will continue to engage constructively with all stakeholders, including those who have raised concerns, to ensure that we find a way forward. It is deeply regrettable that we have received the decision, as we continue to see so many lives lost on the road, deaths that cause so much pain to families and tear our communities apart. It is, undoubtedly, the most dangerous road in Ireland.

My priority remains the safety and well-being of all road users. I am determined that we will deliver the A5. Building the road will save lives, create jobs and significantly reduce journey times between the north-west and Dublin. The judge said:

should be built so that:

In the context of the history of the scheme, that is significant.

Despite the setback, I am determined to find a way forward that sees the road built to ensure that we save lives. Every day of delay risks more avoidable heartbreak. As Infrastructure Minister, I am determined to ensure that a new A5 is delivered.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, when the Assembly returned in 2020, Sinn Féin trumpeted the fact that one of the first motions that it brought to the Assembly demanded that Stormont declare a climate emergency. The Minister's party was then joined by the SDLP and Alliance in imposing unrealistic and punitive climate targets, despite the explicit warnings from the then AERA Minister about the long-term impacts of those targets on other Departments, including the Department for Infrastructure. Minister, will you now take responsibility for the real-world impacts of the virtue signalling that has led us to this point, apologise for it and outline how you intend to solve this mess, which other parties and yours created?

Ms Kimmins: Across the world, people are taking action on climate change and our responsibilities to deal with it. In the context of what we are talking about, it is important to remember the families that are impacted by the decision. This is not a time for point-scoring; it is a time for looking for solutions. That is what I am committed to doing, and that is what I am determined to do.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, the responsibility of any and all Governments is to protect the lives of their people. To be clear, the scale of avoidable mistakes by your Department is staggering. With a series of unforced errors, DFI ignored the Planning Appeals Commission's (PAC) clear recommendations, especially on human rights, climate duties and consultations and, without waiting for carbon budgets, sectoral plans or the CAP, in October your then Minister passed this on and put the project in jeopardy.

Chillingly, the judge said yesterday that more lives would be lost as a result of the ruling. Just to alert the DUP, observers have said since yesterday that the project can be delivered and save lives while upholding climate legislation. Minister, how on earth did your Department and your predecessor, John O'Dowd, fail so catastrophically with the basic requirements of what was needed for the project? What are you going to do about it now? I have not yet heard a solution.

Ms Kimmins: It is clear that the SDLP has the ability to analyse in full a judgement as detailed as that in less than 24 hours. It sounds as though it has all the solutions.

I am committed to ensuring that we have a clear understanding of what the judgement means. That will take time. We have to examine it thoroughly. This is a space in which nobody in the House has been before, as a result of relatively new legislation. My priority is the families and to ensure that we save lives. I do not think that the situation is insurmountable; I think that we can find solutions. I have been engaging with officials. We will ensure that we get a clear report on what the judgement means and on what the options are in moving forward. That is what I am determined to do and will do.

Mr McAleer: Like the Minister, I was in the court yesterday when the judgement was made. I share her disappointment and regret. However, that is nothing compared with the pain that has been experienced by the families who have, tragically, lost loved ones on the road. Will the Minister assure us that she will keep working to deliver the A5 and save lives?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. I thank the Member for reflecting on the unimaginable grief of those families, who continue to campaign strongly on the issue to save other families from the heartbreak that they have experienced. I cannot begin to imagine the grief that they experience every day. I am determined to continue to work as hard as I can to ensure that we deliver. It is too critical: that is important to remember.

I will work with everybody. I have just come out of a meeting with the A5/N2 cross-border group, on which five councils have come together. It was a good meeting. We talked about how we can continue to work together. I commend that group for the huge amount of work that it has done. It has stuck together and worked really hard. I will continue to work with all parties that are willing to work constructively and positively to ensure that we get the job done.

Mr McMurray: Minister, the summer recess is nearly upon us. What actions will be taken to address the issues raised in the judgement around habitats regulations and general environmental law before the autumn?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, we are working through the judgement and what it means. My officials and the legal team are considering that very thoroughly. I hope to have a briefing on it later this week. We will then be able to identify the next steps. A number of options are being considered, so, at this point in time, everything is on the table so that we identify not just the quickest route to where we need to get to but the route that will give us a successful outcome. That is what I continue to do. As we progress through that, I will continue to keep the House updated.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, your Department is in possession of thousands of acres of farmland across Tyrone. It is unclear whether, following the judgement, your Department can still hold that land. Will you assure us that, if the land is returned, compensation for environmental destruction will be issued from your Department?

Ms Kimmins: The judge indicated that the decision and the subsequent orders will all be quashed as a result of yesterday's ruling, so, once that is all in place, those lands will be returned to the landowners from whom they were vested. Officials will write to all the landowners in the coming days, setting out how the Department plans to manage the process of returning the vested lands.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for her answers so far, particularly on behalf of the families who have lost loved ones on the road.

Minister, there have been three legal challenges to the scheme in 18 years. Will you outline the cost of the delay?

Ms Kimmins: That is a very important point because every delay costs lives and not just money, and a price cannot be put on people's lives. Since coming into the role, I have consistently emphasised that any delays to the delivery of the project will just prolong the pain, and we need to ensure that there are no further delays. As many will know, the scheme first got the go-ahead in July 2007 from both the Executive and the Irish Government at a plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. Since then, it has been fraught with challenges.

I note that, yesterday, the representatives of the challengers described the campaign against the scheme as a "16-year crusade". Over the 18 years, the costs have risen, but, more important, more than 50 people have lost their life. They were mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and friends, and that can never be forgotten, which is why I am determined to get the road built. For the people who have been impacted in that way, it is not a crusade; their aim is to ensure that no one else experiences the heartbreak that they have.

Mr Dunne: It is truly a shocking situation and very worrying. The High Court has concluded that, if the A5 road is to be built and emission targets met, other infrastructure projects may have to go by the wayside and other sectors may have to be squeezed. Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable for climate change legislation to create a hierarchy in which only certain roads, schools or hospitals can be built? How will the ruling impact on other major infrastructure projects?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said, we still need to understand exactly what the ruling will mean and what the implications are, and that is not just for my Department. All Ministers will have to consider the implications for all their projects, but it is too early to make any calls before we have a clear and thorough understanding of what the ruling means. The ruling is complex and detailed, and it is important for us to have a clear analysis of the judge's issues, what it will mean for us all going forward and how we can address those in the short term.

Mr McReynolds: In light of yesterday's decision, are you confident that the applied methodology produced robust assessment and conclusions to meet the needs of the A5?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, we are still considering the ruling. We need to look at all of that in the round in addition to what has been provided. The judge gave a detailed summary that lasted almost two and a half hours, and that was a lot of information for anyone who was there to take in. A huge amount of work has gone into the overall legal case and the court proceeding. We will look at all of that to see what needs to happen and where we can go next.

Mr Buckley: Let us get to the nub of the issue: the radical climate change targets that the Minister's party not only demanded but amended to go further have been an act of infrastructure vandalism. Despite the warnings, it has been a costly and entirely avoidable fiasco. Will the Minister now accept that, whether it be in Infrastructure, Economy or Agriculture, the current climate change targets are a dead weight around the neck of the Executive? Will she now agree to review such targets and repeal them?

Ms Kimmins: The Climate Change Act received cross-party support in 2022.

Some Members: No.

Ms Kimmins: There was cross-party support. It was not just Sinn Féin. We remain committed to that. We will look at it all in the round and see what it means going forward.

Mr Butler: I associate myself with the remarks that you made about the families bereaved on that dangerous road. As someone who has attended multiple incidents on behalf of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS), the trauma involved in a fatal road accident is unimaginable, and it goes further than the families.

Minister, at a recent joint Committee meeting with the Infrastructure Committee, it became evident to me that there has not been interdepartmental working for some time on a project of such a scale. Will any lessons be learned from that perspective? It became evident in the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee that farmers and landowners had not been thought about in the complexity of the project.

Ms Kimmins: There has been cross-departmental working on the legal case because the evidence came from the impacted Departments. I have a meeting with Minister Muir this afternoon, and already, we are continuing to work together to see how we move forward to deliver the project.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, the A5 has been subject to serial procedural failings: in 2013, there was the failure to carry out a habitats assessment; in 2018, the Department failed to apply its own flood guidance; there has been legal carelessness in ignoring the Planning Appeals Commission's human rights and climate action recommendations; and there has been poor coordination with no carbon budget or carbon action plan for a project that will cost £1·7 billion. Minister, those failures undermined the project. Do you agree that that demonstrates a lack of competence, urgency and joined-up working? Has the project been sabotaged?

Mr Buckley: Where is Nichola Mallon?

Ms Kimmins: I think that some —.

Ms McLaughlin: PAC review at the time Nichola Mallon [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms McLaughlin: Get your timeline right.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has the Floor.

Ms Kimmins: I reiterate that we need to think of the people who have been affected and remember the families who are at the forefront of this. There are lots of reasons why the project has been delayed for many years. The main reasons have been objections and legal challenges. As I have said, it is just over 24 hours since the judgement was made. It is very detailed and complex, and it is important that we consider that judgement in full before making any assumptions about what is required.

As I have said, this is an Executive flagship project. The decision was brought to the Executive so that all Departments would be on the same page. It is important to say that, out of seven grounds for challenge, only three were upheld. Hundreds of pages of scientific and environmental evidence and mitigations were involved in that decision. In fact, the judge ruled that Tully Bog, which is a special area of conservation (SAC), would be better off with the road than without it. It is very important to outline that. As I said earlier, the judge said that a new and safer A5 should be built so that no more people have to be lost. That will be my focus. We can hark to the past all that we want, but we need to ensure that we deal with what is happening now, how to get past that and how to get the road delivered.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, you responded to colleague about land going back to farmers. Will you indicate what it will cost to put that back? I referred in the Chamber to "Devastation in December". That is exactly what it was: you motored on, wrecking and ripping through farmland without consulting the farmers. It was "Devastation in December". You are going to have to put all that back, plus loss of income. Will you confirm that the loss of income, taken from the time of vesting, will be paid in full to those agricultural holders?

Ms Kimmins: There was significant engagement with landowners. That is a fact. The lands were vested, so, at the time of the preparatory works, the land was owned by the Department. I want to continue with that engagement. As I said, over the coming days and weeks, we will write to all the affected landowners to agree a way forward. That process will follow.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, it is clear that we all care about the families and those who have been devastated by the effect of the A5, but that does not stop us doing our job in the Chamber of delivering accountability. Yesterday's decision was to uphold an appeal of a decision that was made by your predecessor, John O'Dowd. Are you confident, and has your Department advised you, that the decision that he made in October 2024, which was presumably made at risk — it was clearly made at risk — was made in light of all the proper information, including the presence of a viable climate action plan and a proper consultation, as per the PAC report? Did your predecessor, John O'Dowd, fail in his responsibilities? It certainly appears that way.

Ms Kimmins: As I have said, this scheme is too critical. We are still analysing the judgement. There were three or four separate questions within the Member's question, so we will work through those.

It is important to realise that the climate action plan had been delayed. We have to factor that into some of the outworkings of the judgement. Once we get a handle on exactly what the judgement means — it is very detailed, with lots of things in it, and we need to get a good understanding of the issues in relation to the three challenges that were upheld — we will be in a better position to say what we need to do and how we will move forward.

Miss Dolan: I also express condolences to the families who have lost loved ones along the road. It is great to see members of the A5/N2 Alliance in the Public Gallery. Will the Minister give assurances that she will continue to engage with the Dublin Government to see this project through?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. On Friday, at the North/South Ministerial Council plenary meeting, I discussed the A5 with my counterpart in Dublin, Darragh O'Brien. We eagerly anticipated the judgement in the hope that it would enable us to move forward with that project, which will benefit the whole island. I am committed to continuing to work with all parties who are truly determined to see that happen.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, last year's Audit Office report on major capital projects outlined the fact that, at the outset of the A5 project, its cost was estimated at some £800 million, but, with the 10-year delay, it was projected to be £1·7 billion. Given the high value of the project, I expect that there was a significant allocation to it in the Department's budget for 2025-26. How much was allocated to the A5 for 2025-26, and what will happen to that money? Will it be reallocated to other capital projects or used to help compensate the farmers whose land has been affected?

Ms Kimmins: It is important to say that it was a flagship project, so, yes, the money was ring-fenced in the budget. What happens to that remains to be seen as we work through the follow-up to the judgement and the processes that that requires.

The Member referred to the significant rise in costs. That is a consequence of the legal challenges, objections and delays to the road that we have faced. You have outlined clearly the impact of that, which is why it is even more critical that we move at pace and deliver the A5.

Mr Stewart: This is another monumental failure. My thoughts are with the families and loved ones of those who lost their life on the A5. Minister, to date, over £110 million has been spent on the scheme, diggers are on-site, and contractors have been appointed. Have you made an assessment of the compensation payments that may need to be made to the contractors? How much could that add to the cost of the scheme overall?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, we are working through what all that will mean once the decisions and orders that I mentioned have been quashed. It is important to say that that work needed to happen at the earliest possible stage to ensure that, had the judgement been positive, the contractors were ready to go on-site, because we did not want any further delay to the scheme.

Mr Frew: My heart goes out to the bereaved families affected by the A5 and the landowners who have been left in limbo. What good is an Infrastructure Minister who cannot build infrastructure? The same person who is now Infrastructure Minister voted for unrealistic climate change targets that have blocked the building of any infrastructure by any Department.

Ms Kimmins: Obviously, the Member already has the analysis of the judgement that other Members seem to have. I will carefully consider the ruling and its implications, and we can take it from there.

Mr Durkan: This is the latest Executive failure in a growing list: Northern Ireland Water, Casement, the maternity unit at the Royal Victoria Hospital and now the A5. While I do not question the competence or, indeed, the commitment of individual officials, surely it is time to question the systemic capacity of our Civil Service to deliver major infrastructure projects. They are not done on budget; they are not done on time; and, sometimes, they are not done at all. Where are the Executive in their deliberations on an infrastructure commission — a mechanism that would improve delivery but that has itself fallen foul of Executive dithering and delay?

Ms Kimmins: That is probably a question for TEO, not me. [Interruption.]

Mrs Dodds: I associate myself with the remarks of condolence to the families who have lost loved ones on the A5 — it is important to say that at the outset — but, Minister, this is a mess. It is a mess of the creation of those who voted for the climate change targets, but it is also the Infrastructure Department's mess. [Interruption.]

Will you tell the Chamber whether you or your predecessor had to give a ministerial direction in order to move forward with the project ahead of the result of the legal challenge, or did you have the agreement of your permanent secretary? Will you clarify whether the A1 project will go ahead as a major safety project for Northern Ireland?

Ms Kimmins: I am not aware of any reasons why the A1 scheme cannot go ahead. As I said, we need to get a clear understanding of what the judgement means. I will get a detailed analysis in the coming days, as I have asked officials to provide me with one. At this point, however, it is impossible to point to implications for other projects. We will be able to update the House on those issues in due course.

Mr Gaston: Well, the net zero fanatics in the House were warned about the dangers that their Climate Change Act posed, but they chose not to listen. Will the Minister assure the House that no attempts will be made by either her or her Department to exempt the A5 from the Climate Change Act? Does she agree that, in order to move forward with the project and, indeed, others, the only option is to repeal the entire Climate Change Act?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, we are looking at what the judgement means, what the analysis will be, how we will resolve the issues and the options for doing so.

Mr Brooks: Last December, the Sinn Féin Member for West Tyrone Nicola Brogan spoke passionately in the Chamber in favour of the interim climate targets and the draft carbon budgets that the Alliance Environment Minister proposed. Indeed, she stated:

Given the part that the Act played in yesterday's ruling, does the Minister agree?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, it is too early to say what the outcome of the judgement is. It is important that we get the analysis and then make a call on what has to happen next. It is very clear that the DUP and others are trying to suggest that we cannot have both the A5 and the Climate Change Act. We absolutely can.

Mr Brooks: We cannot. It is obvious.

Mr Speaker: Order. Are you finished, Minister?

Ms Kimmins: Yes.

Mr McNulty: This is the third time that Sinn Féin has failed the A5 project. Minister Murphy did not provide the necessary information or comply with the EU habitats directive, which resulted in a successful legal challenge. In 2017, Sinn Féin walked out of government for three years, and the A5 could not proceed, again as the result of a successful legal challenge. In 2025, Minister O'Dowd and Minister Kimmins failed to provide the necessary information and took shortcuts. Civil servants and objectors are running rings around Sinn Féin Ministers. My heart goes out to all the families who have lost loved ones on the A5. Is it the case that Sinn Féin's incompetence in government and its inability to deliver will cost more lives?

Ms Kimmins: One could be forgiven for forgetting that the SDLP held the post of Minister for Infrastructure in the previous mandate. [Interruption.]

There is a complete absence of memory. I will not, however, get caught up in point-scoring on something as critical as the A5 scheme. The behaviour of some Members is disgraceful. Everyone in the Chamber agreed that the road had to be built and committed to it, so we will continue with it. I have no doubt that it will be Sinn Féin that delivers it.

Mr Honeyford: Like the Minister, my thoughts are with the families. We are about to go into recess. The Minister talked about moving forward quickly, getting the analysis and taking time to consider it. The Department will have time to do so over the next two months. Will she commit to coming back to the House in September with an update on the way forward so that we can start to look forward and get the road built finally?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. I am happy to come to the House before then, if required, but, as I said, I want to ensure that we consider the analysis thoroughly. It is important that we get absolute clarity on what is required, what the options are and how we can move forward at the quickest pace possible. It is also important that we achieve the successful outcome that is required. If that point comes sooner than September, I am happy to come back to the House, if necessary.

Mr Brett: My thoughts are with all those who are concerned by the judgement. Minister, my constituents in North Belfast are also concerned by the judgement, in which the judge makes clear that other infrastructure projects may have to be sacrificed. The York Street interchange project, which has been continually delayed, is a transformational project for the entirety of the island of Ireland. Will the Minister confirm that she remains committed to delivering the York Street interchange without delay?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. Once we get a handle on what the judgement means, we will have to look at the learning and how that will impact on other projects. It is unfortunate that Members are quick to write off infrastructure projects. From what I have seen, I do not think that the problem it is insurmountable; we can remedy this. The judge said that he feels that it can be remedied, and that is what my focus will be on.

Mr Chambers: Minister, you reported this morning that you had commissioned a report on shortcomings in Northern Ireland Water. Will you carry out a similar exercise in your Department if you identify any internal failures in its preparation for the legal challenge?

Ms Kimmins: As I said earlier, I have already met officials and asked them to provide a report on the outcome of the judgement and, in conjunction with the legal team, an analysis of what it means. Once I have considered that, we will look at the next steps, but, for now, my focus is on getting this done.

Mr Harvey: Minister, will your Department consider other road safety measures on the existing road, namely speed limits, lines, barriers and overtaking lanes, which might help in the meantime?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his suggestion. As with any existing road, it is important that we continue to look at all road safety measures, so they are continually being monitored. On the A5 specifically, it is clear that the only option is to build the new road. That is the only way that we will tackle the key issues that have seen so many lives lost.

Mr McGrath: Mr Speaker, I am sure that it must be difficult for you to hear all the abuse of the Bill that you had to introduce and publicly welcome in the press. Of course, our thoughts must be with the families of those affected, but, given that the further delays may cause further deaths, if incompetence is found in your Department, Minister, should it be you or your predecessor, Minister O'Dowd, who resigns?

Ms Kimmins: That is a matter for the Assembly.

Mr Kingston: Minister, further to Mrs Dodds's question on the preliminary works that have commenced, which you did not answer, did your predecessor, John O'Dowd, give ministerial direction for those works to commence, and did he get sign-off from the permanent secretary?

Ms Kimmins: As your colleague asked a number of questions, I answered what I could. As I said in answer to her, the lands that were vested were owned by the Department, so we were entitled and within the law to do the preparatory works in advance so that we could get on-site as soon as the judgement was made.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister. Thank you all. Please take your ease until we move to the next item.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Stewart Dickson to continue.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. While Members find it somewhat frustrating when they are talking about a topic and have to break mid-speech, the next section of my contribution has even more meaning now because, in the interim, members of the Committee for the Executive Office have received a number of emails from people who have been and are involved in and affected by the implications of the Bill. Indeed, I prepared my next sentence to say that there are huge questions about those who have been left out of the Bill. This afternoon, I, at least, have received two emails from people who believe that they have been left out. One refers specifically to the posthumous redress for those who were in workhouses, and a second email, which came in even later this afternoon, also deals with those who have potentially been left out. Another Member referred earlier in the debate to the places that might be described as private nursing homes that are not specifically referenced in the Bill or, if they are, only tangentially. There are areas of serious question that we need to cover. I will pass both those emails on to the relevant Committee staff, and I trust that the Committee will be in touch with those correspondents, of whom there were at least two, later today to encourage them to come forward when we move into Committee Stage. I commit in the House today to take forward the issues that they have raised in their commentary to us.

As I said, there are huge questions about those who have been left out, including survivors who were adopted abroad, people who lived outside Northern Ireland and those who, as I said, were in foster care or certain workhouses. We have heard that there may be people who could be described as slipping through the cracks. That brings me to an important point about ensuring that we get a clear message out that, if you believe that you or a relative have been affected or your family history tells you that you have had some involvement in that dark and miserable past, please come forward and speak to the Committee and to the structures that the Bill is setting up. We must ensure that no one is left behind.

We then move to the question of who pays. Clearly, our Government are stepping up, but where is the financial input from the people and organisations that ran the institutions? Where is their accountability? It is not good enough to say that they might be invited to participate: they must be compelled to participate. If they put people in harm, they must be part not only of a financial redress scheme but of the healing. We need to hear clear, proper and fulsome apologies. We need to hear a genuine understanding of the hurt and damage that their predecessors caused over many years.

I, for one, appreciate very much the human rights elements and protections that are built into those organisations and for those organisations. You cannot say that an organisation is guilty of one of these offences until that has been proved, but, equally, we have to balance that with the absolute human rights of the victims and survivors of that terrible past. Therefore, I am determined that we find a way forward — there has been failure in other jurisdictions, particularly the Republic of Ireland — that ensures that we explore every legal avenue to make sure that those who were perpetrators will be made to pay. That is a determination. I cannot make it a promise, but it is a determination that I have in seeing the Bill come to fruition.

In Committee, I also asked about the role of those who recommended that girls and women go into those places. The truth is that people and systems were complicit but have yet to be named. Our inquiry must be wide-reaching enough to look at that. We need to be clear that this was not just a failure of care but a systemic abuse of power and one that was rooted in misogyny, shame and silence. There are to this day those who provide cover-up for those who pressurised or said or suggested that people should be placed in those positions.

To put it plainly, no two stories are the same. Some people want justice; some want recognition; and some simply want an acknowledgement and peace in their life. Our job is to make sure that the inquiry and redress scheme are strong enough to meet all those requirements and flexible and respectful enough to hold all those truths. Legislation is not the end; it is the start. It will work only if survivors are not just consulted but are at the centre and heart of the legislation. That means changing what needs to be changed. That means being honest about where we have fallen short, and it means keeping our promises, especially to those who have waited decades for us to get to this stage. In passing the Bill at Second Stage and moving it to the Committee Stage today, we have a lot of hard work to do to make things better.

Finally, I recognise the work and presentation that has been done by the Executive Office and the contribution of the junior Ministers present in the Chamber today. While I am not chiding, I will, nevertheless, say this: I express my disappointment that the First Minister and deputy First Minister are not present here today, whether they participated in the debate or not. I find it disappointing and, truthfully, disrespectful to the victims and survivors who are in the Public Gallery. I do not know what their diary commitments are, but I really feel that they should have been in the Chamber to hear the Second Stage debate today.

Miss McAllister: I welcome the legislation that has finally been laid before the Assembly. Women and adoptees have waited too long for a public inquiry and redress, so this is a welcome day. That is not to say that the legislation is perfect, and there will be opportunity to make changes. I note specifically the arbitrary date of 29 September 2011, but I will come to that.

Unfortunately, across the island of Ireland, we are no strangers to the harm perpetrated against women and girls over the past century. Whether it is Magdalene laundries, mother-and-baby homes, the retention of babies' organs or symphysiotomy — if you do not know what the last named is, I recommend looking it up, because it is too graphic to describe — all those scandals have caused lifelong pain and distress for many women and their families across this island and those transferred across the globe.

Since becoming an MLA, I have had the opportunity to meet many of the women and men affected by a mother-and-baby home or Magdalene laundry. The legislation is a big moment for many, because it is a step closer to accountability, validation and the truth about what they or their loved ones have suffered. I thank every one of them for their strength and resilience in ensuring that this day would come. Those women and men have been through trauma as a birth mother or adoptee. The initial report by Queen's University and Ulster University included the case of one woman who was born in a mother-and-baby home and was brought back to one later in life by her adoptive parents because she was pregnant. That in itself, just a single case, is very traumatic. That is just one individual, and we know that there are 15,000 individuals.

Many aspects of the Bill will require greater scrutiny and, perhaps, amending, if required, so I particularly welcome thoughts by the junior Minister and by Members from Sinn Féin that there are some areas of the Bill that they are content possibly to amend.

There will be a lot of focus on the Committee Stage.

First, I will examine the issue of redress and the current timeline in the legislation. Understandably, many family members of victims are concerned about the date in the Bill if their loved one passed away before it. I do not sit on the Committee, but I have a particular interest in the Bill. I am unsure of the reasoning behind that date. My colleagues Paula Bradshaw, the Committee Chair, and Stewart Dickson have outlined that, during Committee hearings, sufficient answers were not given for why that date is there. Perhaps we can hear more about it from the junior Minister during her winding-up speech.

Sorry, I think that I give the wrong figure. I said "15,000", but it was 10,000. There were 10,000 in the mother-and-baby homes and 3,000 in the Magdalene laundries. When you add those together, how many of them would be disqualified if we were to keep that date of 29 September 2011? I wonder whether the junior Minister in her winding-up speech can say whether any calculations have been done on how many people that might affect and whether TEO will examine that point. That said, it is important that the Bill is not delayed, so I welcome that it is being debated here today. We need to get it through Committee Stage and the House, but we need to make sure that it does not exclude victims.

My colleagues spoke about the issue of support from victims. There have been a number of public statutory inquiries in Northern Ireland that have had the support of victims throughout the process, but there have also been inquiries from which victims have withdrawn their support because of the lack of support that they felt, be it in giving evidence or through legal representation. I think, for example, of the Muckamore inquiry. I know that some of the family members are not content with that process. It is really important, therefore, that we learn not just from the Republic of Ireland's public inquiry but from other public inquiries that we have held in Northern Ireland.

We need to ensure that the individual harm payment is not delayed. When the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Bill was going through its various stages in the Assembly in 2012, I remember victims coming to the Assembly to support the Bill and to sit in the Chamber and listen. Some of those victims were unable to make it to the date on which the redress payment went live. I know that their family members were able to avail themselves of it, but it was particularly sad to read about the death of certain individuals who had waited so long but were unable to get the redress payment. That is why we need to ensure that the individual harm payment is not delayed.

I acknowledge the difficult work that has already been undertaken by the truth recovery panel, Queen's University and Ulster University. This is a difficult and complex part of our history. It is complex not because of the moral or ethical issues behind it — that is not difficult at all — but because of the trauma involved and because we may, at times, inadvertently or mistakenly re-traumatise people. I pay tribute to those people who have tried to work as diligently and sensitively as possible.

The power to compel the production of evidence is so important in the public inquiry. The junior Minister outlined the reasons why that had to be included in the Bill. It is really important to highlight — this is one of the stains of our past — the fact that institutions did not come forward when they could have done so. I think, for example, of the retention of babies' remains. Many institutions could have come forward and offered up information before the legislation made it to the Floor of the House, but they chose not to. I think of the Historical Institutional Abuse inquiry when many people from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland had to come and give evidence. I think, for example, of Tuam. Whether it was the sisters or the religious institutions, they knew where those babies were. There were people who knew where those babies were all along, but they did not come forward before the legislation reached Parliament in the Republic or up here.

Lessons can be learned from inquiries elsewhere and from the schemes in the Republic. The commission turned down two opportunities to brief the Oireachtas Committee on the final report but took part in external academic seminars. That is something that we must keep a brief on, ensuring that our Committee is given its right and proper process. Victims and survivors lost faith in the process, and an alternative report was published. We do not want to reach that stage, so it is important that victims and survivors are kept on board at all stages.

I also reflect on the issue of vaccine trials. I do not sit on the Committee, so I am not sure whether that is included in the terms of reference of the inquiry, but it is important to clarify whether that is the case, because some of the adoptees have talked specifically about that issue.

I turn my attention to burial sites. Junior Minister Cameron will be aware of the many conversations that we have had on that issue. Many women of mother-and-baby homes and their adoptees, and survivors of Magdalene laundries, chose not to talk about their experiences for years, but there were others who did talk. Whether they talked about it or not, everyone knew what was going on. People knew what was happening. They did not know the full scale of it, but they were aware. However, because of the way that society was then — not many years ago — they turned a blind eye. Then, back in 2016 and 2017, the Tuam site was excavated. I pay tribute to Catherine Corless for all the work that she did to painstakingly locate the records of all those babies and find out where they were buried. One of the issues raised by the initial report from Queen's University and Ulster University was the mortality rate amongst infants from mother-and-baby homes and associated children's homes. It is not at all surprising that we see parallels in Northern Ireland with the situation in the Republic of Ireland. I do not want to create fear or scare anyone by highlighting that issue, but it is really important, because we do not have the records for all the babies who were born in mother-and-baby homes. For those who died, we need to find out why they died and where they are buried.

That brings me to the topic — it will be no surprise that I mention this — of the preservation and recognition of burial sites. Tuam showed us that, where there was no respect in life, there was even less in death for many of these precious souls. In this Chamber, I have raised my concerns many times about the protection of burial sites, particularly around Milltown cemetery in Belfast. We know that infants who died in mother-and-baby homes in Belfast were buried there, with some relatives speaking up and asking for help to locate remains. I think of Paul Vincent O'Hanlon. He is the big brother of Fionnuala Boyle and he died of bronchial pneumonia at seven months having been in the care of a mother-and-baby home. He lies at the bottom of Milltown cemetery, an area at risk of being disturbed by digging works. Works are already disturbing the burial grounds of thousands of infants. However, we do not know the true number of babies there who came from mother-and-baby homes. That is why I asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to include burial sites in the public inquiry. I was given assurances in the House that they would do that. Whilst the full detail of the terms of reference is not contained in the Bill, I am concerned about the preservation of those sites. I hope that that is something that the Committee can look at further and that it can be contained in the Bill. I am glad that the junior Minister mentioned the 4,500 records that have been preserved due to the 2022 legislation. It is also really important that records kept at hospitals and churches are accessed too, because we know that a number of churches right across Northern Ireland had links to various mother-and-baby homes and Magdalene laundries and that the churches have the records.

I return to the issue of accountability. It is very important that this Bill aims to answer the question of who was responsible. We know it, see it and hear it in the stories of survivors: women were forced to give birth in secret and had their babies removed from them without their consent. We hear it in the spoken memories of women who were in the Magdalene laundries. Some, heavily pregnant, were forced to do hard labour. Let us reflect on that: they were forced to do hard, unpaid labour, yet some of the institutions claimed benefits for the women who were in their care, according to the testimony of some of the women who participated in the first Queen's University and Ulster University research. They claimed benefits for the women whom they forced to do hard labour, some of whom were heavily pregnant, and the women got no benefits themselves. That is another reason why redress is really important. Some women even worked until their death. A lot of them were under the care of religious institutions that, given their very origin, their religious beliefs and knowing how they should behave, should have known better. Yet, their so-called Christianity was not carried out in their works.

Then there were the state and charity-run institutions. The state already has a greater responsibility to care for every individual, so it is important that the state be represented. We have moved miles, given that every member of every political party in the House is standing up to say, "That was wrong".

Before I close, I will turn to the most important people involved: the survivors of the institutions. Whether they are a birth mother, a woman or an adoptee and whether they came to harm physically or psychologically, we owe a lot of care and attention to their lived experience. We must ensure that, throughout the entire process, they are at the heart of the legislation, the redress scheme and the public inquiry. I look forward to continuing to work with them and my colleagues on the Committee for the Executive Office to ensure that the Bill passes.

Mr Carroll: The cruelty meted out by mother-and-baby institutions is really difficult to comprehend. I commend all those who have spoken out and those who are here today. The reality is that women across the North were kept prisoners in secretive institutions that were largely controlled by religious orders. The Church and state authorities were fully aware of what was happening in those homes. There was collusion between the Churches and the state to impose a repressive, misogynistic regime on the population, especially women. Those who did not comply faced institutionalisation. Women were subjected to flagrant human rights abuses, arbitrary detention, forced labour, abuse and the removal and forced adoption of their babies. Children from the Traveller community and working-class women in particular were treated with cruelty and disdain. That should be emphasised and included in the debate. The children were branded illegitimate on birth and taken from their mothers. There was nothing wrong with those children and their mothers, but everything was wrong with the society into which they were born. Some were adopted without consent while others were raised in institutions only to face death from malnutrition and burial in mass graves.

Survivors and their families, campaign groups and solicitors have highlighted multiple significant issues with the legislation as it stands. Workhouse victims have been excluded from the payments scheme. Foster care home survivors have also been left behind. Like the Member for North Belfast, I do not understand why there are limits, and I fear that that will create division amongst victims and survivors. The arbitrary cut-off date of September 2011 means that potentially thousands of prospective applicants will not be entitled to redress payments. I have already been contacted by people who feel let down by the cut-off date, and I am sure that other Members have been as well.

As has been mentioned, the Bill details a £10,000 payment for each eligible person and a £2,000 payment for each eligible family member. I support comments made earlier in the debate about the importance of increasing payments in line with inflation, although the figures are not a true reflection of the harm done, to put it mildly. Money alone will not undo the decades of damage done by cruel institutional abuse, but, for many, it will be a small, formal recognition by the state of the trauma that mothers and their children went through. The junior Minister said that extending the eligibility date back to the 1920s would be "without precedent".

Respectfully, I say to the Minister — I hope that she will agree — that the scale of horrific institutional abuse was without precedent. The financial cost of the Bill is easily quantified, but the human cost is not. The drive to save money cannot override the needs of victims and survivors. It is also worth noting that, in recent days, £200 million has been found, seemingly down the back of a sofa, to fund the PSNI, so money should be found for victims and survivors.

The issues with the Bill are so significant that many victims are thinking of leaving the consultation forum. KRW Law, as many know, has called the Bill "unfit for purpose". Survivors need nothing less than full redress and a complete criminal investigation with transparency in its findings. As has been said, the lessons from the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023 in the South must be learned. To be frank, I do not know whether they have been. Records must be made fully available to the public for the sake of basic transparency and accountability. It is time to go back to the drawing board and put victims and survivors, rather than the state's balance sheet, at the heart of the Bill. If that is not done, my party will table amendments to it.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I thank Members for their important contributions to the debate. I hope to touch on all the points that have been raised, but, first, I want to recognise the victims and survivors and their families who were affected by what went on in a shameful part of our past. Before we came back into the Chamber this afternoon, we had an opportunity to meet the victims and survivors in the Public Gallery. I thank you for being here. I know that it will be the first of many meetings that we will have with you as we go forward. I acknowledge you and thank you for your time.

While unable to atone for the suffering of victims and survivors, we hope that the legislation is a significant milestone on their journey towards truth and accountability. It has been mentioned here on several occasions that this is the beginning, and, while that is true of the legislative process, it is certainly not the case for victims and survivors, who have endured years of campaigning, pain and heartache, and there is still a road to go.

The institutions and their practices were a product of systemic misogyny. The regime inflicted on women and girls, many heavily pregnant, was appalling and constituted cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Today, we also acknowledge that it was not only those women who had their rights grossly denied in the institutions but their children, who are now adults. They were failed on every level.

I am sure that I speak for everyone in the Chamber when I express deep regret that, as politicians and legislators, we were not able to reach this stage much sooner. I also acknowledge, however, the many current and past Members of the House who have actively supported the process over the years.

As with any process, the Bill has its limitations, but we are confident that it marks a significant step forward in getting to the truth and supporting those affected. We do not yet know the full extent of the pain and suffering experienced, nor do we know the full nature of the involvement of those ultimately responsible. While we know a lot, we cannot rush to a final judgement. That is why it is important that the public inquiry that the Bill will establish be an independent inquiry that can examine and consider the facts and provide an objective, supported and fair approach for all involved. The evidence uncovered to date tells us that there continue to be many unanswered questions to which the inquiry will seek answers. We look forward to the truth being unearthed and to those who are deemed responsible being held accountable.

As junior Minister Cameron recognised, we are acutely aware that some victims and survivors feel disappointed by parts of the draft Bill before us today. When we met victims and survivors with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister last week, some made their disappointment clear, and we have heard their concerns. I also listened carefully earlier to Members reiterate some of that disappointment. I say again to those Members and to the victims and survivors who are listening today that this is a draft Bill. It is exactly that: a draft. It is very much a work in progress.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the junior Minister for giving way. I may be reading too much into what you have just said, but is the posthumous date, for example, something that you will work on with departmental officials over the summer with the aim of tabling an amendment, as opposed to the Committee having to do so?

Ms Reilly: I thank the Member for her intervention. Throughout the process, we will work with everybody, including the Committee, you, as Chair, and the Deputy Chair. This is very much a draft Bill, and, along with officials, we will work with the Committee and other Members to ensure that what comes out the other end of the process is absolutely what people want to see.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Minister take her seat for a moment?

Ms Reilly: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): For clarity, it is a Bill that is going through the draft process, not a "draft Bill".

Ms Reilly: We also welcome the positive feedback from some victims and survivors and the recognition that the legislation has been carefully and methodically developed and has many positive elements. We are pleased that many of those who have had an opportunity to consider the Bill recognise that the proposals are flexible enough to provide for an inquiry that will be driven by the independent inquiry chairperson and the fact that that will leave the door open for them to examine the facts and go where the evidence takes them. We hope that that approach will mean that the inquiry is as inclusive as the chairperson deems necessary and appropriate. I am sure that, as the Bill works its way through the legislative process, it will become increasingly clear to all just how complex the considerations have been. That has meant that, on many of the issues, it has been difficult to find a perfect landing spot. Importantly, though, we are in listening mode, and it is incumbent on all of us to aim for the best possible Bill.

I thank Members for their comments on the timing of the first redress payments. The scheme will enable acknowledgement payments to be made, so it will achieve the goal of getting some financial redress to a large number of people as soon as possible. I reassure Members that significant work is ongoing in the background to make sure that, as soon as the requisite legislation has been passed, there will be no undue delay in getting the redress service up and running. That is imperative, as we know that victims and survivors have waited more than long enough, particularly given the age profile of so many of them. To that end, let me inform Members where the Department is on the establishment of the redress service. The Department will maximise the existing mechanisms, structures and frameworks of the current redress service so that there are no unnecessary time delays in the establishment of such a service. I also thank the Justice Minister for her personal support on that matter. Subject to legislative passage, we expect the first payments to be made next year, in 2026.

I thank Members for their comments about the standardised payment of £10,000. No amount of money could ever compensate for the pain, trauma and, in many cases, loss experienced by victims and survivors. First and foremost, it is an acknowledgement payment that is based on admittance and the associated shame and stigma that that brought with it. It is also important to note that it is the first of two redress payments for which victims and survivors may be eligible.

To take a step back, the truth recovery design panel considered financial redress with a view to learning lessons from the other redress schemes. It ultimately recommended that there be two payment schemes. The first, an admission-based payment, is different from that in many other schemes, such as the historical institutional abuse redress scheme, which was a harm-based scheme. There was also a strong desire to avoid victims and survivors having to wait many years to receive any financial redress, as is necessarily the case with harm-based redress schemes. This scheme will not replicate the Southern scheme, from which the overwhelming majority of adopted children who are now adults were excluded unless they had been in an institution for more than six months.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the junior Minister giving way and welcome her comments about not replicating the Southern scheme. I appreciate that we are in the early stages, Minister, but will you clarify whether there have been any discussions about Capita's involvement in any of the payment schemes? There have been serious human rights concerns raised about Capita in the past, and I hope that it will not be considered for administering any of these payment schemes.

Ms Reilly: I do not have that information in front of me, Gerry, but we will clarify that and write to you as soon as we can to clear that up.

Our proposed redress scheme is based purely on admittance with no minimum time period; in fact, some children who are now adults who were never in an institution will also be eligible. In many ways, that is the second redress payment and will be known as the "individually assessed payment". It will be based on the specific harm that a victim or survivor suffered, and it is likely to be the more substantial of the two redress payments. That, however, cannot be made until the inquiry has made its findings. As junior Minister Cameron said, the proposed individually assessed payment will follow in separate legislation.

I thank all the Members who contributed their questions and concerns on the issue of posthumous payments in clause 31. That is one of the most sensitive and difficult areas of the Bill; indeed, Ministers have heard at first hand the disappointment that it has caused many victims and survivors. I do not want to repeat what junior Minister Cameron said about that aspect of the Bill, as she provided a fulsome explanation of the relevant clause. She has also talked about comparable schemes and helpfully explained the thought processes and challenges faced in arriving at the decision before us. While it is, admittedly, imperfect, we hoped that it would feel like a reasonably fair solution to a really complex issue.

It is important for us to balance the standardised payment scheme with the individually assessed payment scheme that is to come in addition to the wide range of considerations at play. Following the consultation responses, the original proposal was positively amended to be more inclusive. To clarify again, the clause now includes all eligible family members, which, in practice, means the surviving spouse or partner and all the surviving children, including a person who was adopted into another family. All those people will be able to make an independent application for posthumous payments for those eligible now-deceased birth mothers.

Members should be aware that the consultation responses that were received on that aspect of the Bill were as strongly held as they were diverse. They ranged from some requesting that there be no posthumous scheme at all, given the sensitive nature of the issue and the related and understandable fears about privacy issues, to requests that the scheme be extended back to 1922. Suffice to say that, for now, it is important that victims and survivors take the opportunity to provide their views to the Committee in due course. It will be an ongoing matter of consideration for us, the Committee and the Assembly.

I thank the Chair, Nuala, Sinéad and Brian for their comments about the important issue of adequate and meaningful contributions from the institutions that may be deemed responsible. We recognise that the issue is equally if not more important to victims and survivors than it is to Members, not least because it would demonstrate a tangible recognition from those institutions of the harm that was caused and, to some, a more meaningful form of accountability than words alone can provide.

I note Carál's important contribution about ensuring that institutions are held to account in a public inquiry and cannot hide behind closed doors. Let me assure the House that Ministers also regard that as an important part of the process. It has been and remains under consideration. We are committed to obtaining financial contributions from the bodies and institutions responsible for those historical wrongs. That includes the British Government for their responsibility during periods of direct rule. Ministers have been engaging with Treasury and the Secretary of State on the matter and will continue to press the Government to step up to the plate. Albeit that no agreement has been reached to date, the process remains ongoing.

The same commitment applies to the institutions. We hope that adequate and meaningful arrangements can be put in place. However, that has proved not to be as straightforward as it might first appear, not least as the standardised payment will be paid on a no-harm basis and, crucially, will be paid before a public inquiry has concluded and reached its findings on where responsibility lies. As a result, some institutions may be unlikely to contribute to the first part of the scheme. We note the disappointment at the lack of adequate and meaningful contributions that the Irish Government received, with only one out of nine institutions making a material contribution. It should also be noted that some of the organisations that ran mother-and-baby institutions no longer exist.

The second individually assessed payment scheme, which, to be clear, requires future separate legislation, will be a harm-based scheme. Where deemed appropriate, that is the scheme under which institutions will most definitely be pursued for adequate and meaningful contributions. As Members will know and as some touched on, other similar financial redress situations involved a process of mediation, negotiation and arbitration. All those options remain open.

As junior Minister Cameron said, for precedence, we have looked at where other schemes around the world have made contributions compulsory by putting them on a statutory footing. So far, we have been unable to find any. It is a difficult legal issue, but let me again assure the House that we are open to looking into and finding effective solutions.

Nuala and Carál raised the important and sensitive issue of burial sites and infant mortality. Those issues have caused untold distress, and it remains our desire to do what we can to help those searching for answers. The Bill will contain powers equivalent to those of the Inquiries Act 2005 that will allow the inquiry to determine whether there were systemic failings in the practice of recording deaths and burials. Furthermore, the power to compel provided by the Bill will require a person to give evidence or produce documents, such as death and burial records. That will help establish the evidence base regarding sites of inappropriate burials — for example, unmarked graves — and, linked to that, infant mortality. Of course, if there is a specific concern, any evidence will be brought to the PSNI for it to investigate all potential allegations of criminality.

A complicating factor here is that existing burial grounds legislation, which is the responsibility of the Department for Communities, relates only to council cemeteries and does not cover private graveyards. However, the Bill, as it stands, provides the inquiry chairperson with the ability to commission geophysical surveys with the consent of the landowner. That said, we absolutely recognise that there are limitations in the Bill insofar that further powers would be needed to enable the chairperson to enter potential burial grounds and conduct surveys if the landowner refused permission. Again, we are exploring all options that are available to us.

Separately —.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. I really do welcome what she has said, particularly about the geophysical surveys. However, what is really important is what happens when those are carried out, who carries them out, and that institutions or churches, which are not covered by the public cemetery rules, do not have a say in determining who can carry those out, where and when. That is really important, especially when it comes to Milltown cemetery, which I have mentioned before.

Ms Reilly: I will touch on Milltown cemetery. I agree. Again, as I said, we will explore all the options that are available to us.

Separately, and in addition to that, on Milltown cemetery specifically, officials have been engaging with the Department for Communities and the diocese of Down and Connor to establish the facts where they can. That includes continuing to monitor the situation with regard to the archeological excavations that took place under licence granted by the Department for Communities. We know that further engagement is planned on that important issue. Ministers and officials would be happy to meet the Member on that issue.

That period of our past has had a devastating impact across all of our society and people on these islands more generally. We need to reach out to everyone who was affected. Gender discrimination, which permeated societal attitudes, not only underscored but helped to perpetuate the shame and stigma that ran so deeply across our society. Evidence shows that those practices were not limited by religious belief, culture or class. Of course, while, in many ways, those institutions and practices embodied the worst of that, it was not a characteristic that was unique to those places, rather its effects were also felt much more universally in our homes, villages, towns and cities right across these islands and internationally.

It is important for us to do everything that we can to encourage all victims and survivors to come forward to be a part of the inquiry and redress scheme. As we all know only too well, as with so many aspects of our past, there has, regrettably, been a tendency for people to be divided from one another. In many cases, it was no different for those women and girls. Let me take you back in time. On the Antrim Road, adjacent to the Waterworks end, we had the Mater Dei mother-and-baby institution, which closed its doors in 1984. In its time, it saw approximately 1,400 admissions. Less than a 15-minute walk away, we had the Salvation Army's Thorndale House mother-and-baby institution, which closed its doors in 1977 and had over 2,000 admissions during its lifespan. That example brings to light that the experience affected women and girls and their children, who are now adults, from right across society. It hopefully underlines the importance of shining a light on the experiences of people from all backgrounds.

Of course, the undeserved shaming and blaming of women and girls, unfortunately, was not unique to this place. It also impacted on all parts of these islands. We know from evidence that many institutions operated on an all-island basis, with the cross-border movement of women and girls and their children. That was highlighted in the truth recovery design panel's report. It is an area that the public inquiry that the Bill will establish will undoubtedly investigate.

We know, too, that those practices were part of society in England, Wales, Scotland and further afield. Indeed, many young women from here found themselves across the water with the unedifying official label of "PFI" — pregnant from Ireland. As Members will also be aware, a private Member's Bill to introduce Philomena's law was recently introduced in Westminster, which, if passed, aims to ensure that many survivors living in Britain who have been deterred from making an application to the payment scheme that is operated by the Irish Government will achieve the same benefit disregards that relate to the standardised payment scheme that our Bill will provide. That is a good example of where we have been able to take advantage of lessons learned in previous redress schemes.

We appreciate that the shame and stigma that is felt by so many of those who are affected makes it hard, even to this day, for them to come forward. All those affected are equally deserving of truth, justice and redress, and we want to encourage everyone affected to come forward to take part in the next stage of the process.

Linda and Paula made comments about the need to recognise the victims and survivors who have passed away. We have heard it expressed that the Bill does not acknowledge victims and survivors who have, sadly, passed away. That is not the case. Our focus is on ensuring that the legislation acknowledges the suffering of all victims and survivors. The truth recovery design panel has expressed that redress takes many forms, including the ongoing dedicated and bespoke support for victims and survivors. That is an important form of redress.

We recognise that accessing records has caused significant distress and frustration for victims and survivors. Significant work has been undertaken to help improve that issue. It goes without saying that full access to adoption records is crucial for adopted children who are now adults, as they will provide vital information about their origins, identity and history, all of which can make a significant, positive impact on a person's sense of self and well-being. Understanding the circumstances of their adoption, creating the potential to connect with biological family members and accessing as much information as possible about medical and family history are of the utmost importance. Finding answers to those fundamental questions is a fundamental part of redress. We are grateful to the victims and survivors who engaged with the Department of Health to develop the adoption practice guidance to help improve access to records. Since publication of the guidance in November 2023, the Department of Health has rolled out specialised training for adoption teams. Recent feedback from victims, survivors and post-adoption teams has been positive. That demonstrates that although there is, undoubtedly, room for improvements, significant progress has been made, as the process and outcomes have much improved. The inquiry will consider access to records and efforts to enhance that.

Importantly, recording testimonies from those directly affected, on behalf of those who are no longer with us, helps establish the truth, which is fundamental to proper redress, and, of course, acknowledgement and an apology for all those affected are essential to delivering redress. That is what the Bill and the truth recovery programme of work seek to deliver. In time, we look forward to working closely with victims and survivors to develop and deliver a fulsome and formal apology — one that can draw on all the evidence that the public inquiry will uncover. That apology will acknowledge and recognise all those who have suffered. The apology will be developed alongside victims and survivors to make sure that it conveys the messages that they need and want to hear. They deserve nothing less.

An important outworking of any acknowledgement and apology is the awareness and learning that emanates from it. It should help build upon a legacy that should lead to a brighter future. We must learn the lessons of the past to make sure that they are never repeated. We know, only too well, that the legacies of such failings continue to be endured by victims and survivors. That includes the state and societal structures that were a symptom of a pervasive distrust of women. We must continue to ask ourselves how that misogyny presents itself today, and what can be done to address it. The acts experienced were, at their core, gender-based discrimination against women and girls and, by extension, acts of violence and crime against women and girls.

The days of society's expression of violence against women and girls have not gone away — far from it. It persists in many forms: in our relationships; our homes; our workplaces; our communities; our society. We need to end society's tendency to blame women and girls. We need to ensure that they are not made to carry the blame and undeserved shame that is still experienced too often by too many. We need to show the support and compassion that is needed and deserved — the same support and compassion that was so markedly and conspicuously absent from the lives of the victims and survivors. We owe a debt of gratitude to the victims and survivors, for they have shown perseverance, a sense of justice and courage. They have shown that it is possible to shine a light on the wrongdoings of the past and not only begin to hold those responsible accountable but, with that, help to recalibrate society's attitudes.

I, again, thank Members for engaging so thoughtfully and constructively in the debate on the general principles of this significant Bill. Again, we recognise that the Bill is not everything, but it is a significant step forward in the process of achieving truth, acknowledgement and accountability. The inquiry that it will bring about will help us to collectively acknowledge our past and work towards building a future based on compassion, accountability and protecting the rights of others. We will learn lessons from the investigation that the legislation will establish — lessons that we can take forward to make the lives of women and girls as equitable and dignified as they deserve to be.

We will continue to strive to make sure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard and respected in the creation of policies that affect their lives. As we move forward, let us work together to weave a tapestry of hope and resilience from the threads of our shared history. To all those who have suffered, I say that today is another step towards acknowledging and mending the scars of our past. We stand in solidarity with you, the victims and survivors, as we seek to face the wounds of the past. Together, we will make sure that the lessons learned from that dark chapter light the path towards a more just and equitable future for all.

Finally, we again thank the victims and survivors, who have been on this journey for so long. We see you, we hear you and we are with you. We also thank our officials — Martin, Michaela and Pauline and their team — for their time, effort and dedication in supporting the progression of this work. I say to Mr Dickson that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have tasked us with taking this legislation forward, and I can assure you that they are as committed to this really important legislation as we are. On their behalf and that of the Executive Office and the Assembly, we will do our utmost with it. As junior Minister Cameron said at the outset, we look forward to working with the Committee, including its Chair and Deputy Chair, on refining this important Bill and, ultimately, empowering those who have been affected to achieve truth, acknowledgement and accountability. Our officials will be on hand to help and support the Committee in its work of scrutinising the Bill.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Bill stands referred to the Committee for the Executive Office. Please take your ease while we change the top Table.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business is a debate on three motions to approve draft statutory rules (SRs), all of which relate to legal complaints and regulation. I will ask the Clerk to read the first motion and then call the Minister to move it. The Minister will then be invited to commence the debate on all three motions listed in the Order Paper. When all Members who wish to speak have done so, I shall put the Question on the first motion. The second motion will then be read into the record, and I will call the Minister to move it. The Question will then be put on that motion straight away. The process will be repeated for the remaining motion. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

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

Mr O'Dowd: The legal profession is crucial in upholding the rule of law, ensuring access to justice and protecting individual rights. The work of the profession ensures fairness, accountability and the proper functioning of the legal system. We must therefore ensure that there are proper mechanisms for people to raise concerns or complain in cases of poor performance. Let me put today's debate into context for Members.

In December 2005, a legal services review group, chaired by Professor Sir George Bain, was established to recommend to the then Minister of Finance and Personnel how the legal profession should be regulated. The group included representatives of lawyers, voluntary organisations, the business sector, consumers and academics from the legal and economic fields. Following an extensive consultation in 2006, the group made 42 recommendations across a number of areas, leading to the Department consulting on a draft legal complaints and regulations Bill in 2013.

The consultation included provisions to change the way in which complaints against lawyers are dealt with, to create new oversight arrangements for complaints handling and to make provisions for other aspects of the regulation of lawyers. The main change was the proposed introduction of an oversight arrangement for complaints against barristers in addition to solicitors. After consultation, the Bill passed Final Stage in the Assembly and received Royal Assent in April 2016. A Legal Services Oversight Commissioner, Marian Cree, was appointed in April 2017, with Marian also fulfilling the existing lay observer role of overseeing complaints against solicitors. The full provisions of the Act to provide the commissioner with the full range of powers were not commenced for a number of reasons, including the lack of an Executive and the prioritisation of resources during COVID.

Work has now progressed, in collaboration with the professional bodies, the Law Society and the Bar Council, to a stage where I am glad that the Assembly can debate the three statutory rules that will give effect to the Act's provisions. The three statutory rules being debated today detail the policy on the following issues: a levy paid by the professional bodies to meet the cost of the commissioner's office; penalties that the commissioner can direct in certain circumstances; and appeals against the determination of complaints under the new system.

As I noted, we have worked collaboratively to agree with the professional bodies the policy intention that underpins the statutory rules. We have also secured the agreement of the Lady Chief Justice to the appeal regulations, which allows them to be made to the High Court. The agreement ensures that we are on course to commence the Act and give effect to its full provisions from 1 September. I reassure the Assembly that the statutory rules do not change the fundamental regulatory position that relates to the legal professions, nor do they duplicate any area of regulation.

The day-to-day operational regulations of solicitors will continue to be the responsibility of the Law Society, and the regulation of barristers will continue to be the responsibility of the structures of the Bar. The Department has consulted and engaged regularly with the professional bodies in the development of the statutory rules. We also engaged with the Finance Committee, the Justice Committee and, as I noted, the Lady Chief Justice before bringing the motions to the Assembly. I thank everyone involved for their positive engagement.

The Department will continue its engagement as the proposed commencement date of 1 September for the Act's provisions approaches and following their commencement. That will be particularly important, as the Department will review the Act's implementation after three years, with the Act requiring that the Department bring any terms of such a review to the Assembly under the negative resolution procedure.

To conclude, the draft statutory rules give effect to provisions in the Legal Complaints and Regulation Act (NI) 2016. Should the Assembly approve them, the statutory rules will come into operation on 1 September, which is when I intend to commence the provisions of the Act. That is an important and long overdue step towards providing anyone here who is dissatisfied with aspects of services provided to them by solicitors and barristers with an appropriate complaints process. The role of the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner is vital and will help ensure that that is the case, while also providing the Department and Members with reassurances about the policy objectives of the Act that the Assembly passed. I commend the draft statutory rules to the Assembly.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak first about the Committee for Finance's scrutiny of the draft statutory rules and then speak briefly with my Opposition hat on.

I thank the Minister for his comments, his officials for making themselves available and the commissioner for appearing before the Committee to aid us in our scrutiny. The Committee considered the statutory rules, which will enact the role of the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner. The draft Legal Complaints and Regulation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Levy) Regulations 2025 provide for a financial levy on professional bodies, which is the amount that they will each pay in order to cover the cost of the commissioner's office. The draft Legal Complaints and Regulation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Appeals) Regulations 2025 provide for rights of appeal from respective complaints committees. The draft Legal Complaints and Regulation (Penalty) Order (NI) 2025 provides for the amount of financial penalty that the commissioner can impose on the professional bodies. The draft SRs follow on from the Legal Complaints and Regulation Act 2016.

In its deliberations, the Committee noted its disappointment at the fact that it has taken nine years for the regulations, which give the requisite powers to the commissioner, to be laid, although the Committee accepts the Department's rationale for the delay. The policy proposal, in the form of the SL1 letter, was first considered by the Committee at its meeting on 21 May 2025. Members were briefed by the current Legal Services Oversight Commissioner and departmental officials, who discussed the work that had been progressed since the Act received Royal Assent. They discussed the differences that would be made to the role of the commissioner on commencement of the subordinate legislation and the potential financial impact and time frame for their full implementation.

I highlight the fact that the Committee agreed that it was content with the policy proposals but that it also agreed to seek further clarification on a number of issues, including the mechanism used to set the levy for the Law Society and the Bar Council, the estimates of the levy and the estimated costs that the commissioner's office will incur once it is fully established. Separately, the Committee agreed to write to the Law Society and the Bar Council to seek comments from them and confirmation that they were content with the proposals. Both organisations confirmed, in their responses, that, although they were content with the legislation, they were in discussion with the Department on some issues, including the time limits for appealing, what will be covered by the levy and whether a transitional provision would be suitable, considering the timeline that is involved. We would welcome the Minister elaborating on any of that in his winding-up speech, should he wish to do so.

The Committee also wrote to the Committee for Justice to seek its views and to ask whether that area might sit more appropriately with it. She is not in the Chamber, but the Chair of the Committee for Justice may have something to say about that at some point.

The Committee held an additional session with departmental officials on 18 June 2025 to discuss the issues that Committee members raised about the subordinate legislation. Committee members confirmed that they were content with the Department's policy proposals, and the Committee agreed to seek a further update on the costs, running and governance of the office at the end of the year. The Committee noted assurances that the Department provided on the position in GB and on the regulatory and financial impacts. The Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR) reported on the draft rules and had no objection to them.

There was Committee consensus in support of the draft statutory rules, and, at its meeting on 18 June, the Committee agreed to recommend that they be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, the Committee for Finance supports the motions to affirm each of the rules.

I will say a few brief words in my Opposition role. First, the role of the Department of Justice needs to be looked at. The Minister of Finance and his Department are very busy. They have just completed a spending review; two pieces of legislation were introduced yesterday; and three- and five-year Budgets are being worked on for later in the year, as are lots of other bits of our fiscal framework. Speaking for myself and my party, it is very strange that the Department of Finance is responsible for these strange odds and sods that relate to legal services and civil legal matters. It would make a lot more sense if those matters sat with the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice, as they do in neighbouring jurisdictions. It is a strange relic, left over from when policing and justice powers were devolved 15 year ago, that they do not, and I see no good reason why they should not be moved.

There are, of course, other issues to do with the devolution of justice powers, including who gets to be Minister of Justice, that my party and others would like to see progress on, but it is worth making this important point: my Committee has lots to do, as does the Minister's Department, yet we are being detained by legal services oversight, which is important work but would sit more properly with the Department of Justice. One reason why it would do so is that the Department of Justice has primary responsibility for the legal profession and the administration of justice in the North.

We face a potential crisis in the number of legal practitioners in the years to come. I suppose that I should declare a retrospective interest. My dad was one of those small-town solicitors who did everything — probate, conveyancing, going down to a custody suite for somebody who needed a lawyer at short notice on a Saturday night — as part of the one-stop-shop public service that small-town solicitors provide. We face a crisis, particularly in rural areas but also in some working-class areas of our cities where people need that kind of legal service. It is very important — the Minister might want to say something about it — that we give clarity to legal professionals in the age of big corporate law firms getting all the attention and, we are told, of AI apparently taking over certain types of legal work, if ordinary people are to be able to access justice and legal services on the high street. It is about reassuring them that the costs will be minimal. If the Minister is able to say something about the fact that the costs for individual solicitors will be relatively small, that would be an important reassurance. It should ultimately be for the Minister of Justice to explain how she will defend access for ordinary working people in the North. That is a really important part of this, and it would more properly sit with the Minister of Justice.

I will say something about the absurdity of the situation in which we have found ourselves due to the delay in these matters. We are, effectively, commencing part of a piece of legislation that we passed nine years ago. That illustrates the absurdity of collapsing the institutions and what that leads to: delay in things such as legal services oversight and improving the oversight of the legal profession — the Bar and solicitors. The law was passed nine years ago. There is no reason why it should not have been commenced. Bluntly, it would have been commenced had big parties not collapsed the institutions. Let us please never do that again; let us reform our institutions so that it cannot happen again.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want, with the indulgence of the Chair, to briefly touch on something that is not directly related to the legislation but is critical. The Minister of Finance is here. Until a few months ago, he was the Minister for Infrastructure. Just yesterday, we heard there was a judgement in a court case — this relates to a legal matter — on the A5.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: There is an outstanding question —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Principal Deputy Speaker, there is an outstanding question —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — about whether the Minister issued a ministerial direction. I would —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, take your seat.

Mr O'Toole: This is of the utmost importance.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Everything is of the utmost importance. I appreciate that the debate extended into justice because of the role of Finance in it. You need to come quickly to your utmost important point or I will ask you to take your seat.

Mr O'Toole: My utmost important point is this: the question was not answered as to whether the Minister gave a direction to his officials in October in relation to progressing the A5. Will he clarify that point now — I will give way to him — or in his remarks later? That is critical for the people who care about the construction of the A5 and how we move forward with that. I do not know whether the Minister wants to clarify that now or in his remarks later.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Will you please take your seat, Matthew?

Mr O'Toole: I will take my seat, but that is unbelievably important information. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. OK. This is a finance debate; it is not a debate about infrastructure. I really appreciate your energy, but it is misplaced.

As the leader of the Opposition, you should know which debate you are on. More than that, you are also the Chair of the Finance Committee. Will you conclude your remarks on finance, please?

Mr O'Toole: I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will consider offering clarity in his winding- up remarks about whether he offered a direction on the A5. That is of the utmost importance.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Matthew. Much appreciated.

Miss Dolan: I welcome the fact that we have reached the stage of being able to move forward with providing the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner with a full range of powers from September this year, particularly as the Act was passed in 2016. There has been considerable delay in getting to this point. As we heard at Committee, however, one benefit of that gap was that it enabled engagement on the changes to the complaints process and collaboration between the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner, the Law Society and the Bar Council. I note that the Law Society and Bar Council have sought more clarification from the Department about the levy that will cover the running costs of the office, which is understandable. While the Department has provided assurances that the cost for solicitors and barristers will be minimal, it is important that that expenditure be governed effectively. Implementation of the regulations is a positive step, as it will improve the regulatory framework by providing more powers to the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner and enhance the openness and transparency of the complaints process for solicitors and barristers.

Ms Forsythe: During the process of reviewing the statutory rules, which will enact the role of the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner, the Finance Committee received a briefing on 21 May 2025, at which I raised a number of questions, and another briefing on Wednesday 18 June, at which I raised more questions. I do not feel as though my questions were adequately answered to the point of alleviating our concerns. I take the opportunity to raise those concerns today and to ask the Minister for some clarification and reassurance, where possible, as without the answers to those questions, we cannot support the statutory rules.

First, given the fact that we are some nine years down the line from implementing the regulations, I am concerned that more work was not done to refresh the legislation and to establish whether what was passed in 2016 is still relevant and required. The scope of the process needs to be more clearly defined to avoid duplication with the existing oversight and accountability bodies, which the profession also pays for. Will the Minister commit to saying that that clarity will be provided and set out clearly, and will he advise when it will be available?

Secondly, I am extremely concerned about the budget and governance process for the regulations. It was outlined to us that, to date, the commissioner has been operating without the powers in those statutory rules at a modest cost to the Department, but, with those powers, the costs will increase, because an office and a staff are to be set up. In response to my queries about how much that was estimated to be, no estimate or business plan seemed to be in place. In an attempt to address my concerns, it was outlined that the spend on running costs throughout the year would not be a cost to the Department of Finance but that it would be recouped retrospectively at the end of the year by charging a levy to all members of the legal profession in Northern Ireland. That has caused me more concern, not less, as that expenditure behaviour looks as though operations are progressing with, in effect, a blank cheque. There is no incentive for any commissioner or their staff to live within a designated budget. Cost control mechanisms should be built in. The Department wants to commence the legislation from September, but it is clear that it does not know what it needs or what the cost will be. Just because the final cost does not lie in the Department of Finance's budget does not mean that it is not its responsibility to manage the finances and governance and to ensure that the levy that will be passed on to the sector is of fair value.

I ask the Minister to please outline what the financial governance process will be in the matter as it progresses through his Department. Will there be a business plan? Who will it be presented to? Who will oversee it? Also, what is in place to prevent expansion and an increase in costs to the level of some other commissioners, which hit around £1 million a year, or ombudsmen, which have a much higher annual cost? We need assurance that it is future-proofed and that a review mechanism is built in.

I am somewhat surprised that the leader of the Opposition does not appear to share my concerns. Of utmost importance to him is which Minister is in the Chamber and bringing questions on the A5, but my key concerns in this matter are the financial controls in the statutory rules that we are debating. I also highlight my concerns about access to justice in Northern Ireland. My colleague Joanne Bunting, Chair of the Justice Committee, has outlined to me that many Justice Committee evidence sessions from the profession have indicated that many solicitors' firms are closing, particularly the small, more local firms that also undertake legal aid work. I know that from my own area. It is widespread in rural communities, and I note that there will be an Adjournment debate today on access to legal services in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It is also happening in our cities. Northern Ireland is facing an access to justice crisis, and we have seen a new all-party group established in the Assembly on that topic. From this point, I want to highlight the need to closely monitor and control the impact that the new commissioner will have on the legal profession, which is facing significant pressures currently.

My final query that I raised at Committee and that has not yet been answered is whether this commissioner has been granted powers with any built-in safeguards for the unfortunate circumstances in which it is required that the commissioner be suspended pending investigation. Have we learned the lessons from the recent issues with the Police Ombudsman, who, bizarrely, was unable to be suspended whilst under investigation? I ask the Minister whether safeguards are built in here as, again, no answer was forthcoming in Committee and we are here today.

I note that the Chair of the Finance Committee has stated that the Committee agreed to seek a further update on the costs, running and governance of the office at the end of the year, but I wanted to draw those points out today because I feel so strongly that it needs to be addressed up front. Plans under these statutory rules will commence from September 2025, and I do not believe that it is appropriate to approve the establishment of a commissioner's office with what is effectively a blank cheque, with no budget in place, unclear controls, no review mechanisms and imposing levies on legal practitioners to cover the cost. I hope that the Minister appreciates my concerns on that and that we cannot support progressing without clarity on those issues.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I am grateful to Members for their contributions.

As I set out, these regulations give effect to the Legal Complaints and Regulation Act 2016 by establishing the post of Legal Services Oversight Commissioner. Introducing a layperson-led complaints process against solicitors and barristers will ensure that members of the public and users of legal services here can have confidence in the services provided and, where those fall below expectations, an appropriate mechanism for complaint. That is at the crux of this and of Ms Forsythe's comments. We are equipping members of the public with a service to ensure that they will have proper recourse to a complaints process, and that complaints process will be overseen by a commissioner. I think that that is only right and proper. The balance of power between a member of the public and a solicitor or, for that matter, a barrister is somewhat unbalanced unless we give further protections to members of the public. That does not duplicate or replicate the mechanisms that are already in place, whether for solicitors or for barristers. It gives oversight to make sure that those systems are working properly and to show where improvements can be recommended.

On costs, the levy will be an amount that is equivalent to the expenditure of the commissioner, not including her salary. That amount will be calculated to the professional bodies at the end of each financial year. It is not possible at this stage to estimate what that might be as there are some logistical issues to finalise; for example, accommodation and support staff for the commissioner. However, we have indicated to the professional bodies that we do not expect the levy to be more than £150,000 per annum, which would equate to less than £40 for each solicitor and barrister. I think that that is a reasonable fee, considering where we are at. We are committed to working with the commissioner to ensure that any expenditure is kept to a minimum.

Mr Brett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in one second.

The Department sponsors the commissioner's role, as is done in the current lay observer role, and appropriate governance arrangements will continue to be in place to ensure that the role is performed in line with legislation and, importantly, the principles of 'Managing Public Money NI'. The arrangements will include regular formal governance oversight and meetings between the Department and the commissioner in which budgets and expenditure, business performance and risk management will be discussed.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. Can he outline why we have not been able to calculate an exact cost at this stage, given that the legislation passed nine years ago? It is difficult for us, as Members, to go a solicitor and say that we voted through these regulations, but we cannot tell you how much it will cost. I know that there is an approximation, but surely the work of calculating that could have been carried out before we vote on these regulations.

Mr O'Dowd: In fairness, there has been a calculation. It is estimated that we do not expect the levy to be more than £150,000 per annum, which would equate to less than £40 per solicitor and barrister. I think that that is good value for money, given that we are putting in place protections and support for members of the public and oversight of the working practices for how the legal profession deals with complaints. It is only right and proper that there is independent oversight of that. We have worked quite closely with the professional bodies in that regard to bring the legislation to this stage, and we will continue to work with the professional bodies as we move forward with the role of the commissioner. We are not talking about an extravagant amount of money. The estimated cost per solicitor and barrister is £40. That is reasonable for what we are asking and for what services we are bringing through.

The legislation is also open to review and will be reviewed within three years, and any changes proposed by any future Minister will have to be brought before the House for a vote. There are protections built into this as well, but, to me, the important thing is that this is about balancing rights and the power dynamic in these things, and I think that the introduction of a commissioner is a good thing.

On the question of whether this should be under the Department of Finance or the Department of Justice, I am open to that discussion. There is an anomaly there, and whether we have time in the remainder of the mandate to correct that is open to question, but I am certainly not protective of this in the sense that I want to retain it in my Department. There is a sensible conversation to be had, and if it makes more sense for it to be in the Department of Justice, I am more than content for it to move over to that Department.

Finally, to clarify, I have not issued any ministerial directions in the past two years or more.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The motion has already been debated.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The motion has already been debated.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease for a moment while we change the top Table. Thank you.

Mr Kearney: I beg to move

Dr Aiken: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 13, I would like to make a point of order on the inclusion in the Order Paper of the private Members' motion entitled "End Israeli Impunity in Gaza". I wish you to adjudicate as to whether the motion is compatible with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism that our Northern Ireland Assembly adopted on 27 April 2021. I believe that the motion is not compatible with the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and I respectfully wish that you judge on the motion.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. The Member corresponded previously, so we noted your view that the motion is not compatible with the resolution made by the Assembly in 2021 to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. However, whilst private Members' motions express the political will of the Assembly, they have no procedural effect on future business and do not restrict parties from tabling motions that they wish to table.

Private Members' motions are generally non-binding and have no legal effect, as, indeed, this motion does not. You raised the point today, but in my role, I have no powers to stop the motion from being debated. The Business Committee has accepted that, and therefore we will proceed.

Mr Kearney: Since October 2023, at least 56,000 Palestinian people have been killed in Israel's genocidal war in Gaza. Almost 1,000 have been slaughtered in the West Bank. According to UNICEF, Gaza has become a graveyard for children. It is now the most dangerous place on this planet for children to live. Today in Gaza, there are 60,000 malnourished children. They are suffering from dehydration and multiple communicable diseases. The health system has been destroyed; water infrastructure is collapsing; and the population is now threatened with drought and famine. According to the United Nations, there are more than 2·1 million people trapped, bombed and starved. Food, medicine, fuel and shelter supplies are being blocked from entry to Gaza by the Israeli siege. Hunger is being used as a weapon of war. A World Health Organization (WHO) trauma surgeon stated:

In the past month, multiple massacres have taken place at those so-called food distribution centres. Up to and including today, dozens of starving and malnourished Palestinians have been and are being murdered by Israel while they seek food, medical supplies and shelter at those locations. They are not humanitarian aid centres; they are, in fact, engineered deathtraps, where vulnerable, dispossessed people are being systematically and indiscriminately murdered. That is not happening spontaneously or accidentally: Palestinian people are being corralled into particular locations on the promise of food and assistance as a way to hem them in and then kill them.

The United Nations has already stated that the pillars of international law under which food and aid should be delivered have been undermined by Israel's actions. International humanitarian law demands that Israel not attack hospitals, schools, humanitarian aid workers or other civilian institutions. The Geneva conventions, particularly the fourth convention, are clear: the occupying force is bound by international humanitarian laws that require humane treatment of the population and the steady provision of basic needs, including food and medical care.

Israel is now in systemic violation of the Geneva convention, the Rome statute and the UN Charter. That is why the International Criminal Court (ICC) has approved arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. They stand accused of having used starvation as a weapon of war and of massacring civilians in the occupied territories. The ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found that Palestinians in Gaza are faced with genocide due to Israeli aggression. The democratic international consensus, as reflected in successive UN resolutions, legal opinions and universal norms and practices, is that Israel's actions are unequivocal violations of international humanitarian law, and still —.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kearney: No, I will not.

Still, Israel stands in defiance of the multilateral system by inflicting untold suffering on the civilian population in Palestine. Why is that? It is because it knows that it can do so with impunity, due to the shameful failure of Western powers to stand up for humanity. The evidence of Israeli state terrorism grows with every passing week.

The recent report from the EU's High Representative for Human Rights now assesses non-compliance by Israel with its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel association agreement. I have previously said that the human rights clause in that agreement has been fundamentally violated. Action must be taken by the EU immediately, not subject to further review in July, as was reported yesterday. The EU-Israel association agreement must be terminated without further delay.

The International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and democratic opinion across the world have spoken: Israel is guilty of multiple human rights violations and multiple war crimes. International boycott, divestment and sanctions must be applied to Israel immediately. Total arms embargoes must be enforced.

Just as we have run out of vocabulary to describe the genocide and the barbaric occupation of Palestine, words of censure and condemnation have been exhausted. The EU and other Western powers must take comprehensive, robust measures to bring the genocide to an end and to hold Israel accountable for its multiple violations of humanitarian standards and its ongoing war crimes. The sanctions that were applied against Russia should be enforced against Israel.

The motion calls on the British Government to end all their arms sales to Israel and:

It further calls on the Irish Government to enact the Occupied Territories Bill and to bring an end to facilitating sales of Israeli war bonds.

Those accused of war crimes must be brought before the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Our multilateral order and the framework of international humanitarian law were established in direct response to the crimes that global imperialist powers committed in the past. Today, the largest Western powers are shredding that international law. The Israeli Government are out of control. They have crossed every red line. They are attempting to annihilate Palestinian civilisation and society. They are not serious about peace. Their actions are far beyond the pale. No international state can be allowed to commit genocide against women and children and commence unprovoked wars against other sovereign states without being subject to international accountability and sanction.

The Israelis and those who support their actions are destroying every humanitarian and diplomatic norm and the basis of peaceful global coexistence. Urgent universal action is needed to bring Israel to heel. The holocaust of the Palestinian people and the colonisation of their lands must be stopped. There are no grey areas. There can be no ambiguity. We now either stand on the side of humanity and the rule of international law or acquiesce in the face of sadism and evil. That is the choice before the Assembly. I hope that political and moral leadership will be shown by everyone in the House by passing the motion.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: You have up to 10 minutes, Mr Beattie.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What is happening in the Middle East is a tragedy, as are other conflicts right across the globe, many of which receive little or no recognition. Thousands of people are being killed and injured right across the Middle East. Families are being separated and displaced. There is forced hunger and a lack of basic services.

Trying to condense this debate into a slogan, strapline or social media clip just to promote a political stance is to use the suffering of those very same people for selfish purposes.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Beattie: I wrote an extensive section for my contribution that highlighted Sinn Féin's support for global terrorism, including support for Libya's Colonel Gaddafi and Yasser Arafat of the PLO, and how it is that that drives Sinn Féin's bias in the region and its ideology. I decided against including it, however. I instead decided that I would scrutinise the motion against our amendment.

Sinn Féin outlines the genuine suffering of the Palestinian people, yet it ignores the documented rape, torture and murder of Israeli citizens. The Ulster Unionist Party amendment affirms that all life, be it Palestinian or Israeli:

Sinn Féin condemns Israel for all its actions while deliberately stepping over the role of Hamas and its brutal control of the Palestinian people; its arbitrary detention of its citizens, including 17 journalists and six human rights activists; its torture and isolation of minority groups; its extrajudicial executions; its indoctrination of children; and its failure to protect women and girls from gender-based violence while supporting the marriage of girls under the age of 15. Hamas also supports violence in the home, giving husbands free rein to do whatever they want to do.

The Ulster Unionist Party amendment condemns Israel's actions of using hunger as a weapon of war, outlines its disproportionate military campaign in Gaza, which is not in keeping with international humanitarian law, the law of armed conflict or:

We do so while outlining:

by using terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias to attack Israel, its people and its interests, as well as Western organisations, through global terrorism.

Sinn Féin's motion commends a media stunt: the Madleen Freedom Flotilla. That flotilla contained no aid of any substantial use to Gazans. It was used to boost egos.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Yes.

Dr Aiken: When the so-called flotilla was making its way towards Gaza, it left Somalis sitting in the water and created an international incident, when it should have been rescuing people? That was some form of humanitarian effort, eh?

Mr Beattie: Yes, but they got the likes on YouTube. That is what really matters. The flotilla was about the participants promoting themselves on social media. It was shameful narcissism, making the suffering of Gazans all about them.

The Ulster Unionist Party's amendment, on the other hand, calls for a rejection of "any form of collective punishment"; again rails against:

opposes the

and

with sustained and continuous aid, medical access and essential services.

The Sinn Féin motion welcomes a recent decision by third-level institutions such as Queen's University Belfast and Trinity College Dublin to "divest from Israeli investments"; a key privilege tool that will help the starving children of Gaza. Really? We need to get a grip. Those institutions do that while Irish airspace and Shannon Airport are being used to move hundreds of thousands of US troops, equipment, arms and munitions into the Middle East and north Africa, and they turn a blind eye to it. The Occupied Territories Bill in the South, the enactment of which Sinn Féin is calling for, will fix that, no? No, it will not; it will continue.

The Ulster Unionist Party's amendment calls for:

to promote genuine dialogue, putting Israeli and Palestinian aspirations front and centre. We do not support a hierarchy of aspiration or victim. Taking a side in a long and complicated conflict is simply counterproductive.

Sinn Féin calls for the UK to recognise Palestine while many surrounding countries believe that Israel does not have the right to exist. The Ulster Unionist Party calls for a two-state solution as envisaged by the Oslo agreement, with both states having a right to exist in peace and security, free from threats.

The Sinn Féin motion calls for an arms embargo on Israel, yet terrorist groups, supported by a heavily armed Iran, continue to arm themselves. Sinn Féin also fails to mention that four companies in the Irish Republic are supplying parts for munitions and technology to Israel. That does not seem to be in the motion either. The Ulster Unionist Party believes that Israel has a right to defend itself, and the minimal military equipment that is supplied by the UK is mostly for defensive purposes in the form of radar and early warning component parts. Why does Israel need that radar? It needs it because it is under continuous attack.

We can clearly agree on some issues, and I have outlined them. The Sinn Féin motion, however, is based on support for terrorism, not the stabilisation of the region. It refuses to criticise, even in the most basic terms, the actions of Hamas. It shows a level of bias that undermines the real issues facing the region. It is the self-righteous, self-interested virtue signalling of some who see Palestine solidarity purely as a Twitter graphic for likes.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that one of the starkest aspects of the motion is its sensationalist use of language, such as:

That totally denies reality. On 16 and 17 June, 149 aid trucks entered the Gaza Strip, and, on 16 June, more than 3·1 million meals were provided to those in the Gaza Strip. That sounds like a pretty debunked method of starvation.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for raising that point.

Here is where I come from in all this: balance. Let us have some balance. Why is it OK for an Israeli child to die but not OK for a Palestinian child or vice versa? Let us get balance. There is no balance in the motion. We need to be better than this. We cannot be led by TikTok or Instagram. Getting a photo wearing a shemagh — for those who do not know, it is that scarf that they wear around their neck — .

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: One moment.

Wearing a shemagh cannot be the sum of support for a people in a desperate situation or a region overcome by violence. Instead, let us double down on our efforts to get a long-lasting, sustainable ceasefire, ensure that humanitarian aid corridors are set up and work and use diplomatic means to move towards a lasting peace where Israeli and Palestinian can live side by side and the malign influence of Iran no longer has a grip on them.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way for the purposes of debate. He talks about balance, and balance is important. Does he accept that, in this equation, one side is a nuclear-armed state that lost in an appalling — [Interruption.]

The Member chunters about Iran. Yes, Iran has a nuclear programme, but it is not a fully armed nuclear state, which Israel has been for more than 60 years. Let us also be clear that Israel is a nuclear-armed state, and it has killed tens of thousands of people. That is not a balanced situation.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for his intervention, but he has absolutely no understanding of his point. They are in a country that is surrounded by the likes of Iran and Syria, along with Hezbollah and Hamas, and being bombed by the Houthis. Seriously, you should think it through. Balance, guys.

It might be easy to support the Sinn Féin motion because that is the popular thing to do, but read it carefully. Compare it with the Ulster Unionist Party amendment, and you will see clearly who has laid out the issue at hand and who has the right approach to a difficult conflict, ensuring that the lives of a Palestinian and an Israeli are of equal measure. That is not what the motion gives us.

Mr Speaker: Mr Beattie was generous in giving way several times. I hope that that will be reflected throughout the debate and that it will be a proper debate at that point.

Ms Bunting: I have had enough of listening for months in the House to misinformation and propaganda with nary a word about what the Israelis have suffered. Of course, we do not want to see any people, especially children, starving or hurt, but let us get real about what led to this. Some in the House are all too willing to gloss over that.

All this comes back to Hamas. It all starts there, particularly following the absolute horrors of 7 October 2023. I do not recall motions coming from those on the opposite Benches to condemn that, when literally hundreds of men, women and children were kidnapped, raped, mutilated and murdered. I do not recall an outpouring of sympathy or outrage from the opposite Benches for the Israeli children who were being brutally tortured and murdered. There was no outcry about or even a mention of the abhorrent videos showing young Israeli women being kidnapped, screaming and crying for help as they were carried away on the back of mopeds. There was no outrage for the woman — one of many — who was gang-raped and killed in the back of a truck, her stricken body paraded and then left for all to see her degradation. Some in here have the gall to lecture Israel about its humanity — no. Let us put the focus where it should be: on Hamas and the terrorist regimes that support it. Maybe that is too close to home for some.

Remko Leemhuis is the director of the American Jewish Committee in Berlin. In the aftermath of the October attacks, he visited Israel as part of a delegation. He said:

If Members wish to go down that road, the least they should do is make it clear whether they are pro-Palestine or pro-Hamas, because their motion does not make that apparent, other than to suggest that they are anti-Israel.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The brutal recollection of facts that she states is uncomfortable for many in the House. Will she add that there are families who today still do not know the whereabouts of their loved ones or whether they are alive or dead and are going through emotional trauma, day in, day out?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Bunting: Absolutely, and there is no mention of that in the motion.

Assertions in the motion are untrue. Let us be clear, if Members actually want to debate the facts: aid is allowed into Gaza and is getting into Gaza, but Hamas is stealing it. The motion references the targeting of civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and schools, wilfully and blindly ignoring the fact that Hamas is hiding in hospitals and schools and using the people in them as human shields. It is building bases in and beneath them. If those people cared about the people for whom they purport to fight, would those brave Hamas volunteers be stealing their food and hiding in tunnels under their children's schools? Over 600 days on, there are still hostages, and the remains of those murdered have not been returned to their families.

Let us remember that Israel is the only democracy in the region, the only country there with a free society based on Western values and the only one with free and fair elections. Israel has a right to go after terrorists who are inflicting horrific acts on its people and attacking its nation. Hamas knew exactly what it was getting into, because the whole world knows that Israel operates by FAFO. It has to because it is surrounded by nations that want to see it obliterated and wiped off the face of the earth.

Every November, we remember — well, some of us do — our war dead and the human cost. Part of that is remembrance of the Holocaust and the horrors inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis. Jews living here — our citizens — are now being terrorised. They are living in fear, as antisemitism is on the rise again. Do Members find that acceptable? Do they consider that motions such as this will make the lives of our Jewish community any easier? Do they even care? There is zero condemnation of Hamas and its activity in the motion — zero — but maybe that is because birds of a feather flock together, given Sinn Féin's inextricable links.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation that exploits and places in danger the very people whom it purports to represent, and it is nothing but a puppet for Iran, the biggest sponsor of terror in the world. As I said, I really do not want Palestinians to suffer, but Hamas could stop what it started. It has chosen not to. When Hamas is defeated and yet another terrorist organisation has failed, the Palestinians will be free, and the world will be a better place.

Mr Dickson: What we witness in Gaza is not a war; it is a brutal, calculated and systemic attempt to erase an entire people physically, socially and politically. Over 50,000 Palestinians have been killed, and thousands more carry wounds that are not only physical but psychological and emotional. It is a humanitarian disaster. Right now, in Gaza, people — human beings — are on the brink of famine. Nearly half a million people are at risk of starvation. That has not happened by chance; it is the result of Israel's blocking aid for months while destroying what little remains of Gaza's food system. Starvation is not just a war crime; it is a tactic. It is being used to break down a society, to dismantle its political identity and to destroy the ability to function. In May and June, Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were simply trying to feed themselves. We saw the same on 29 February 2024, during the so-called flour massacre, when 112 people were killed for trying to feed themselves. Those actions directly violate international rulings, including three separate orders from the International Court of Justice. It ordered Israel to enable humanitarian access and prevent irreparable harm to Palestinians under the genocide convention.

The aim is not only extermination but social collapse. By cutting off food, water, healthcare and shelter — the building blocks of everyday life — the goal is to make the life of the Palestinian unlivable.

People are forced to focus on individual survival. Communities have broken down. Solidarity is attacked. That is not incidental: it is intentional.

We are told that what is happening is chaos. Gaza is descending into disorder.

Mr Beattie: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dickson: No, I want to make progress and complete my speech. I have a lot to say.

The disorder is part of a strategy. Once Gaza is broken, external powers will step in, not to rebuild but to reshape it for their own ends. They will call that "stability", but we know what that really means.

We cannot ignore the destruction of Gaza's hospitals. Most have been bombed and made unusable. Cancer treatment has gone. The Gaza European Hospital, once the only facility able to offer surgical oncology, no longer functions. A total of 14,000 healthcare workers have been killed. The healthcare system has not just collapsed; it has been targeted.

The destruction goes beyond hospitals. Some 89% of Gaza's water and sanitation infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed, and 90% of homes are gone, uninhabitable. Almost the entire population has been displaced, living in shelters with no clean water, sanitation or medicine. Infectious diseases are rampant. The toll on children is beyond comprehension. On average, 35 children are killed every day; 20,000 have died since 7 October. Some arrive at emergency clinics with gunshot wounds, others are dying of hunger. For those who survive, the trauma will never leave them.

For too long, Israel has acted with impunity. Despite widespread evidence of war crimes, despite rulings from international courts, Governments and institutions have stayed silent or quiet. That silence is complicity, yet recent statements from the UK, France and Canada have warned of the consequences if Israel does not end its assault and lift the blockade. However, we have heard that before. We have seen what red lines mean in practice. The time for statements is over. The evidence is there. The destruction is there. The suffering is unbearable. If we do not act now, we are failing the Palestinian citizens, we are failing ourselves and we are failing our humanity. Let us be clear: that is genocide, not metaphorically, but legally, under the genocide convention, —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Dickson: — and once we name it, we have responsibilities.

Mr O'Toole: I worry that Dr Aiken set a very clear tone at the beginning of the debate when he cited the IHRA definition and, as per his interpretation of that definition, effectively accused of antisemitism those of us, including those Members who tabled the motion, who care about humanity and want to call out the appalling genocide that Israel is visiting upon the Palestinian people. That speaks to a very chilling tendency to shut down debate from among those who will not hear criticisms and factual statements about the deeply immoral, evil actions of the state of Israel over the past 18 months and more.

At the end of this century, most of us in the Chamber — I imagine nearly all of us — will be gone. However, there will be people alive in Palestine — I hope in a Palestinian state, living in justice and peace — who will remember the trauma of the past two years. They will be living with the trauma that has been visited upon their people over the past two years: 50,000-plus lives lost, many of them children. I genuinely do not know how Members in the Chamber can hoot, barrack and jeer when it comes to the profound moral obscenity of tens of thousands of children being slaughtered by the state of Israel. I genuinely do not know how people can do that.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: The Member asked for an intervention. I will give him an intervention.

Mr Brooks: The previous Member who spoke did not give way, yet he was talking about the health system and hospitals. He did not make any reference to Hamas or the fact that it uses those places as bases and its own people as human targets. That has an awful lot to do with the number of dead.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr O'Toole: Let me say this: I deplore profoundly what Hamas did on 7 October. Let us get that out of the way, OK? I do not defend Hamas or have any truck with that organisation. However, are Israeli children being slaughtered by the tens of thousands? A legitimate answer to that question cannot simply be to shout, "But Hamas".

Just before I got up to speak, I was on the website of the International Criminal Court reading the warrant for the arrest of Mr Benjamin Netanyahu. If there is any justice in the world, Benjamin Netanyahu will, at some point, face justice and, hopefully, live out his days in a courtroom and then a prison. Sadly, I fear that that will not happen, because he has been given cover by Western powers. Those of us who actually believe that Western democracies should stand for human rights and international law are precisely the ones who should tell the United States, the UK, the European Union and other Western states that to give the state of Israel cover for the obscene crimes that it has committed in Gaza and, over many years, in Palestine undermines fatally the idea of human rights, the rule of law and international rules. How can the West turn round to Vladimir Putin, who has launched an illegal war in Ukraine, and say, "You are breaking the rules", when Benjamin Netanyahu and his racist, fascist killing machine is allowed to go into Gaza and kill with impunity?

Dr Aiken does not like me using strong words about Netanyahu. A couple of weeks ago, in the Chamber, he accused the Irish state of, I think, borderline Nazism because it criticised Israel. If he wants to use robust language about those who criticise Israel, I am afraid that he will have to listen to robust language from those of us who think that the state of Israel has gone far beyond what is acceptable in defending itself.

Let me come to the point.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I do not have much time but I will give way very briefly.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way and also for the respectful tone with which he has set out the context in Gaza. Does he agree with or acknowledge concerns in the House about the one-sided and dangerous nature and narrative of the motion? If so, does he support the Ulster Unionists' amendment, which recognises both sides?

Mr O'Toole: The answer is no because, while Hamas is an appalling organisation, the Member is conflating two sides that are not balanced, frankly. The state of Israel secretly armed itself to be a nuclear power 60-plus years ago. It did so with the connivance of the United States and other Western Governments. It has launched a brutal, one-sided campaign of killing on the people of Gaza, whom it seeks to wipe out. There is, I am afraid, no balance in that situation. To pretend that there is a balance would be not just disingenuous, from my perspective, but immoral and wrong.

This is an important motion. Those of us who care about human rights and the rule of law should support it. Those of us who care about all the people of Palestine and Israel — Jewish, Muslim and Christian — living in peace, dignity and justice should stand firmly against the obscenity of what is happening there at the minute. My party supports the motion.

Ms Ferguson: Just yesterday, a final, desperate plea was heard from Nasser Hospital, which was that, in 24 hours, there would be absolutely no formula left to give to any surviving premature babies. At the very same time, a 33-year-old mother lay on the site with her baby clung to her breast. Unknown to her baby, she had nothing left to give, her body starved and dehydrated. This motion is another desperate plea for humanity, courage and action in the face of the most catastrophic humanitarian crisis of our time.

For over 20 months, the Israeli Government have waged a campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people with total impunity, day in and day out, showing total disregard for international law, morality or human rights. As stated by Amir Amini:

A chairde,

the campaign of genocidal destruction that the US and British-backed Israeli forces are unleashing in Gaza is far from new. It is a continuation of a centuries-long process of Western colonisation. Whilst the British Government are threatening to define Palestine Action as a proscribed organisation, our message to them is that they would be better served by acting immediately to end their own complicity.

Our motion calls on the British Government to stop all arms sales to Israel; to introduce real, meaningful political and economic sanctions; and to officially recognise the state of Palestine. To the Twenty-six County Government, our message is simple: you have a duty to represent the will of the Irish people, and we are fiercely proud of our Palestinian solidarity and our Irish neutrality. The Occupied Territories Bill must be passed and fully enacted as a matter of urgency, and the triple lock must be protected and defended.

A chairde,

only strong, unified and relentless global pressure can bring Israel's death, destruction and devastation to an end. Today, let our message be heard loud and clear: we condemn any aiding and abetting of the rogue state of Israel; we condemn the decimation of medical supplies and ambulance services, with no fuel or electricity to save the wounded and dying; we condemn the deliberate starvation, bombardment and suffocating grip of colonial occupation and blockade; we demand immediate action and accountability; we ask for strong, unified, global pressure; and we must deliver an end to Israel's impunity.

Mr Martin: There are a lot of aspects of the Sinn Féin motion that I wish I had time to deal with, but I will be able to cover only a few. It quotes figures from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). The figures that Sinn Féin uses are taken from the office's briefing paper. First, let me get on the record that there has been an absolutely appalling loss of life in Gaza and Israel — I will come back to that later. Clarity and transparency, however, are important. Those figures that from the OCHA and that were quoted by the Members opposite come directly from the Hamas-run Ministry of Health.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I have not got far but I will give way.

Mr Tennyson: I agree with the Member that transparency is absolutely essential. Does he agree that it is appalling that the Israeli Government will not allow international journalists into Gaza to verify those figures?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for his question. Lots of figures have been placed on the record. I am simply stating a fact that all the casualty figures that have come out of that area are based on information from the Hamas-run Ministry of Health. The BBC uses those figures, as does every aid organisation. You can go with those figures. I am not disputing that the death toll has been appalling, but, if you take the figures that the Members opposite have used, you are believing a proscribed terrorist organisation, and I simply will not do that.

I turn to the loss of human life. It has been stated:

Those are not my words but those of Amnesty International, which has been one of the most vocal and ardent critics of Israel in the past 20 years. It is clear and undisputed that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad store munitions, harbour terrorists and fire rockets from schools, mosques and hospitals in clear violation of the Geneva Convention.

Mr Brooks: And not a word.

Mr Martin: Yes, but why? In 2008, soon after Hamas took control of Gaza, Hamas Interior Minister, Fathi Hammad, delivered a speech on Al-Aqsa TV. He said that the enemies of Allah:

methods

We need look no further for the reason behind the horrendous loss of life in Gaza. It was clearly designed and delivered by Hamas.

The motion calls for BDS: boycott, divestment and sanctions. In recent history, we have witnessed the boycotting of Jewish businesses. It started in Nazi Germany in 1933. Five years later, we had Kristallnacht — the Night of Broken Glass — which was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Germany, Austria and the Sudetenland. Two hundred synagogues were destroyed, 7,500 Jewish shops were looted and 30,000 male Jews were sent to concentration camps. Two years later, Auschwitz opened. The motion uses the rather innocuous phrase "to divest from Israeli investments". I say this: never again.

I apologise to the Member opposite, as I was not here to hear his speech. He quoted the IHRA definition, which has been talked about. It gives clear examples of antisemitism. I say this to the Member from the Opposition: I would not accuse anyone in the Chamber of antisemitism. The IHRA defines what it is, however. It includes:

That is relevant, because the UK signed up to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, as did the Assembly in May 2021, despite Sinn Féin opposition.

I remind Sinn Féin and those who also support the motion that 1,200 civilians were raped, murdered, dismembered and burned alive on 7 October. It is worth my stating that, because maybe they are unaware that it happened. I see no reference to it in the motion. Our party will oppose the motion and support the Ulster Unionist Party amendment.

Mr McMurray: I speak today as an Alliance Party MLA, but, perhaps more than that, I turn my face to look at the issue. I admit that I have not always done so. As Jeremy Bowen, the BBC's international editor, put it:

As a parent of two children and a husband, how could I look? I could not process the images that I was seeing, so I turned away.

Although the current situation seems intractable, it has not always been thus. In preparing for the debate and reading around the subject, I was brought back to the early 1990s and to my first politically conscious thought on the region, which was that Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat and Bill Clinton were peacebuilders. It was also around that time that I noticed our own predisposition to the issue: Star of David Israeli flags went up on one side of the Ormeau Bridge, while Palestinian flags went up on the other. I turned away again. After listening to some of the interactions between the first few Members who have spoken, I feel like turning away again. It is brutal. I can turn away no longer.

My commute from Castlewellan to Ballynahinch, Carryduff, Forestside and then Stormont is pretty much the length of the Gaza Strip, but what a world away: the drumlins of south Down compared with the militarised zone and associated encampments of two million people, the majority of whom are displaced. Some 92% of houses and 70% of structures have been destroyed. That is the reality of the militarised zone that is the Gaza Strip.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have said that roads leading to aid hubs are to be considered combat zones. A road to aid is to be considered a combat zone: I cannot comprehend that. The Red Cross has said that no one should die while trying to get aid for themselves and their families or while giving aid to others, but, unfortunately, that has come to pass. By my maths, if three million meals are going to two million people, that is half a day's worth of food per person.

I acknowledge the work of my colleague Kate Nicholl. As Members may know, she cannot be here today, and thus I have the chance to turn and face some of the horrors.

Ms Nicholl has been working closely with the Palestinian community here, many of whom have lost family members in Gaza. I am proud of Kate and how she has turned to face the issue. In doing so, she has helped me to turn and face it. I also thank those in my constituency who have organised around the issue. Constituents have taken Palestinian children into their homes, and there are constituents who have had quiet conversations with me on the subject and articulated their views. You have all helped me to turn and face the issue.

There are granules of hope. Not every Palestinian supports the terrorism of Hamas, and not every Israeli supports the political trajectory of Netanyahu.

Mr Beattie: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: Certainly. Will I get a minute?

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not disagree with an awful lot of what you have said; in fact, what you have said is in our amendment. What is key is that we believe that every life, Israeli or Palestinian, is equal, and the motion does not say that. Will you join Sinn Féin and the SDLP in voting for a motion that says that the life of an Israeli child is worth less than that of a Palestinian child?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McMurray: I am not sure that I can vote for the amendment, mostly because it removes the motion's reference to arms sales and transfers, which is essentially what is causing a lot of this. I am afraid that I cannot do that.

Again, I point to the positives. We have Wahat Salam/Neve Shalom, which translates as "Oasis of Peace". That is a settlement of Israelis and Palestinians who are trying to live together. I recall the conversation with visiting Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh, a Christian Palestinian who lives in Bethlehem. He said that he observes Ramadan and his Muslim friends observe Christmas and Lent because, as he put it:

There are still people who will not let divisions become chasms, although there is a danger of that happening, with all the associated intergenerational trauma. Our present attitude is about building a secure peace for the future of Israel and Palestine.

We support the motion. There are a lot of elements to it. I am not an expert on those elements, and the experts do not always agree on them. For me, there is a simple logic diagram to follow —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: Yes.

Mr Brooks: I, too, agree with much of what the Member has said, but does he have a single word of condemnation for Hamas, Iran and those who have brought the Middle East to this place? Will he consider the motion that he is about to support and whether that is truly turning his face to the fullness and nuances of the situation?

Mr McMurray: I have no problem condemning the terrorist actions of Hamas. Not a problem. I have already done it. You have asked me the same question again, but that is OK.

Mr Chambers: Will you call for the release of hostages?

Mr McMurray: I will call for the release of hostages.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Let Mr McMurray be heard, please.

Mr McMurray, I thought that I was going to hear more from you. Are you finished?

Mr McMurray: Yes, I have nearly finished [Laughter.]

I was not sure about whether to continue because there is a lot of chuntering. I know that you like robust debate.

Mr Speaker: I was actually calling them to order for once. [Laughter.]

Mr McMurray: There is a simple logic diagram on the motion. Is what is going on in Gaza wrong? If the answer is, "Yes", which it is, the logic diagram points to supporting the motion. As my mother would say, "Wrong is wrong".

Putting politics aside, I thank the individuals, groups, NGOs and political parties that have helped me to turn and face this situation.

Miss Hargey: I thank everyone who has contributed. I had not intended to speak, but I have listened to what people have said and have scribbled a couple of things down. The past couple of weeks have reminded me of one of my favourite speeches by the inspiring British MP, the late Tony Benn, about the Iraq war. In that speech, he spoke about his experience of growing up in London during the Blitz and how the community was impacted by that. From that came the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is an international framework that many here have spoken about. The proposer of the amendment mentioned that all civilian life is protected under international law, and I agree with that.

Let us look at the issues, which pertained long before 7 October 2023; indeed, the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council have had hundreds of resolutions between them. If you do a quick Google search, you will see hundreds of resolutions predating 2023 that pertain to conflict. I will name a few of those. In December 1968, they looked to establish a:

In 1971, they called on Israel to stop its illegal settlements. In 1977, following previous appeals — there are many such calls in the hundreds of resolutions — there was a call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. In 1981, there was condemnation of an Israeli attack on an Iraqi nuclear facility. History repeated itself right up to the present day, and looking back to last year, the International Court of Justice said that the occupation of Palestinian territories is unlawful. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Government Ministers and, right at the top of that Cabinet, the Prime Minister for war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is no balance in oppression and illegal occupation, and there is certainly no balance in genocide.

Mr Buckley: I oppose the motion not because I dismiss the suffering of the people in Gaza —.

A Member: Your colleagues did.

Mr Buckley: I speak on my behalf. I oppose it not because I dismiss the suffering of the people in Gaza or because I reject the right of Palestinians to safety, dignity and statehood. I deplore every loss of innocent life throughout the conflict. I oppose the motion because it presents a dangerous, one-sided narrative that risks undermining any genuine path to peace.

The motion condemns Israel in sweeping, absolutist terms, labelling its actions as genocide and war crimes without acknowledging the context of a brutal and ongoing conflict initiated by Hamas on 7 October. I do not recall motions calling for the immediate release of the hostages or condemning the actions that took place. Let us remember that, on that fateful day, over 1,000 Israeli civilians were brutally murdered — they were massacred — hundreds were taken hostage and the rapes of innocent women and young girls were documented. To entirely omit that context is not just misleading but morally irresponsible —

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: — and dishonest. I will in a moment.

Shockingly, the motion fails to condemn Hamas for using civilians as human shields, embedding military infrastructure in schools —

Mr Frew: And hospitals.

Mr Buckley: — and hospitals and indiscriminately firing rockets into Israeli towns.

I give way to Mr Tennyson.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. To correct the record, the SDLP brought a motion to the House last year that was supported. It condemned Hamas and called for the immediate release of hostages. The Member's party voted against it.

Secondly, on his point about civilian infrastructure being used to create human shields, surely the Member would agree that, with military and intelligence of such might, Israel could take a more targeted approach than bombarding civilians.

Mr Buckley: The Member is being deliberately misleading about the wording of the motion; that is the context.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Buckley: I have heard much in this place about a blockade of aid to Gaza. The United Nations alone spent approximately £4·5 billion in Gaza between 2014 and 2020. What was much of that aid used for? Not to build roads, schools or hospitals but to build an elaborate network of tunnels that Hamas used to kidnap, torture and rape innocent civilians.

So, please —

Some Members: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: No, I do not have time at this stage.

— let us remember that Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, and it deserves to be treated as such. To ignore Hamas's responsibility is to ignore the root cause of the conflict. Once more, the motion ignores the suffering of Israeli civilians, including children living under the constant threat of attack by Hamas. I visited Israel. I went to a kibbutz. I saw how elaborate bomb shelters had to be no more than 10 to 20 metres from their playgrounds. Those people and that land have the right to defend themselves against such attacks.

Once more, the motion condemns Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure and personnel, yet it conveniently omits the documented use, as has been mentioned, of hospitals, schools and ambulances as military assets. Israel has repeatedly said that it targets militants and their infrastructure while taking steps to minimise civilian harm: measures not afforded by Hamas.

In closing, I will say this: if we are truly committed to peace and want to recognise all suffering — I recognise that some have the will to do that — we must support efforts that recognise the responsibilities and rights of both peoples. I say to the Alliance Party that the amendment fits exactly what Mr McMurray said, and I call on it to consider supporting the amendment, which shows a road to peace that requires nuance, balance and honest engagement, not one-sided condemnation.

Dr Aiken: I made considerable notes for the debate. However, there is not much point in going through them. They were well-considered points. They spoke to points of international law, the Geneva Convention and the various rules set out under the genocide convention of 1948 and how those were measured.

One reason why I asked to make a point of order earlier was my real concern about the word "genocide" and how it was used. We have heard from Mr O'Toole. We have heard about the International Court of Justice, even though the international court did not, in fact, say that Israel had committed genocide; it said that that had not been proven. Indeed, one issue that is going through the court at the moment is whether that definition can actually be found and whether it can be looked at. One reason why that is happening is that some of the judges, particularly the Russian one, have decided that they want to relook at the rules and what makes up the definition of "genocide". Let us make no bones about it: there is genocide. There is genocide in Nigeria. There is genocide in Sudan. There is genocide in Yemen. There was genocide in Syria. There was genocide in Myanmar. There is genocide all over the world. Have we debated a single motion in the House about real genocide and where genocide is occurring right now?

Some Members: No.

Dr Aiken: No. Absolutely none. 'The Law of Armed Conflict' — it would be useful for Members to have a look at that manual some time and read what is in it — is clear. It may not make for nice reading for people, but if the enemy decides to use mosques, hospitals, schools or whatever for military purposes, they can be attacked. That is not a nice thing to do — I know that; I have done it — but here is the reality: when they hide underneath those structures and fire rockets from them, they become, according to 'The Law of Armed Conflict', targets.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: No, I will not.

It is under 'The Law of Armed Conflict', so one would presume that other actors in this war would have the same sort of thing. Do the Iranians follow the law of armed conflict? No. Does Hezbollah follow the law of armed conflict?

Some Members: No.

Dr Aiken: No. Does Hamas follow the law of armed conflict? Definitely not. When Hamas went around on 7 October [Interruption.]

When Hamas went around raping, murdering, torturing and beheading — do you know how we know that that happened? They live-streamed it. Why did they live-stream it? They did so because they were following the same activity that was being done in Syria by ISIL and in the Lebanon. If anyone who followed that and watched those streams says to me that Hamas, in any way, was following the law of armed conflict, I just cannot understand where you are coming from.

There is another issue; one of the most fundamental issues. The motion, which is the first private Members' motion to be debated today, was tabled by people who still think that there was no alternative, because the IRA never used any laws of armed conflict: none whatsoever.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member take an intervention?

Dr Aiken: No, please.

Hamas did not take any —

Miss McAllister: You do not need to point your finger at me.

Dr Aiken: I did not point my finger.

Mr Frew: Oh my goodness.

Mr Speaker: Order. Through the Chair, Members.

Dr Aiken: What do we have here? We have a motion that completely ignores the reality on the ground in the Middle East. It does not talk about Iran. It does not talk about the conflict that has been going on for decades. It does not talk about the fact that Israel is probably the only place in the Middle East where there is a modicum of democracy.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most dangerous things here is the promotion of a one-sided narrative, based on lived experiences on Northern Ireland? Members should endorse not that but should endorse a balanced and nuanced approach, such as that in the amendment.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Dr Aiken: Thank you. Some of us who have been at war hate it. There is nothing nice about war and urban conflicts. There is nothing nice about seeing cities being flattened. There is nothing nice about casualties. There is absolutely no way that we should be endorsing or looking at the death of women, children and non-combatants. I even feel quite guilty when we take out combatants, because I am a Christian. I feel a large degree of fear at what has happened to people across the world.

What I am more concerned about is the othering of Israel in the debate and the decision to take out one actor and put it on a platform. If that is the way that you look at Israel and what it is doing, why can you not look at other countries and the things that they are doing? What is the one thing about Israel that so gets to you? What is it?

A Member: Slaughter and murder.

Mr Tennyson: It has killed 50,000 people. [Inaudible.]

Dr Aiken: All right. Let us keep going with the antisemitism, shall we? [Interruption.]

It is antisemitic. [Interruption.]

I say this clearly: the only reason that you single out Israel is because it is Jewish. [Interruption.]

Mr Frew: Hear, hear.

Dr Aiken: The only reason that you want to do is that because of the Jewishness of it. That is it. That is every single reason. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, order. We are moving beyond a little bit of chuntering towards the Member not being heard.

Dr Aiken: Yes, they are chuntering, Mr Speaker —

Mr Speaker: We can stand chuntering, but the Member is not being heard.

Dr Aiken: — but they must listen to the truth.

Mr Frew: Truth hurts.

Dr Aiken: When the truth comes through —.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member take an intervention?

Dr Aiken: I am sorry, I will run out of time in three seconds.

Ms Mulholland: Oh my goodness. I know that I am not alone in my horror at what is unfolding on our screens and, actually, in the House. I refer to the communications that I have had from my constituents. On no other topic this year have I had more emails than on the humanitarian issue in Gaza. People can shake their heads and disagree, but I know what my email inbox says. They are not people who support Hamas. They do not wish ill on any civilians, but they say that they feel helpless and hopeless because of the images that they see on social media. After the laughing, the in-jokes from one side of the House and the shouting down of other opinions in this debate, I ask this: where is the respect and humanity?

A Member: Who was joking? Nobody was joking.

Ms Mulholland: No, you have to —. You look around the Chamber and —.

Mr Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

Ms Mulholland: Sorry. I will continue.

I find it difficult to talk about balance, when some people in the Chamber seen unable to separate Hamas from Palestinian civilians or Israelis from the Israeli Government. There should never be a "but" when we talk about the death of any human. To have any representative in the Chamber say, "What has happened to the Palestinians is awful, but" and then talk about another horrific act is simply horrendous. When we talk about those issues, we do not always have to point to "the other side" or "both sides".

I will make a point about the idea that any criticism of the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitic. I have to reject that notion entirely. It is dangerous and dishonest to conflate the Israeli Government's military campaign with Jewish identity.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Will she agree that Dr Aiken's contribution to the debate was outrageous and that it is not wrong to hold the Israeli Government accountable for their actions, in that he would struggle to point to any other democracy that has murdered 50,000 people?

Ms Mulholland: The leading cause of child death around the world at this time is the Israeli Government. This year alone, more children have been murdered —.

Dr Aiken: Have you a number?

Ms Mulholland: It is from Save the Children, I believe, and I can send the Member the link.

Dr Aiken: So Russia has not been doing it, or China or anyone?

Ms Mulholland: There is always a "but" and always a, "What about?" This is horrific.

Antisemitism, like all forms of racism and hatred, must be opposed wherever it rises, but it is not antisemitic to call out [Interruption.]

It is not antisemitic to call out the attacks on Gaza. It is not antisemitic to demand that international law be upheld. It is not. It is not antisemitism to mourn the loss or starvation of Palestinian lives or to call for their protection. We do ourselves and our Jewish friends and neighbours a grave disservice if we allow legitimate criticisms of a military action to be smeared as hate. Before we are asked, yes, we condemn the horrific attacks by Hamas on 7 October 2023. We supported a motion in this Chamber that referenced that. We condemn Hamas unequivocally. The murder of civilians, the taking of hostages and the use of sexual violence against women in a conflict situation are all appalling attacks that rightly shocked the world.

Mr Beattie: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Go on ahead, really briefly.

Mr Beattie: You are saying exactly what our amendment is saying, so you are absolutely right. I totally agree with you, but the motion is a one-sided motion.

Ms Mulholland: I will take note of that. However, the reduction and removal of arms is, for me, definitely a key point of that.

Every innocent life, whether it is Israeli or Palestinian, is of equal value, and we reaffirm that fundamental truth and call for the immediate release of all hostages. I find the use of starvation particularly horrific. We have seen the harrowing images of emaciated children, and, whilst others will say that it is not starvation, so many charities and NGOs around the world that have said the exact same thing: aid is not getting in, and children are going hungry due to the lack of nutritious items entering the Gaza Strip. New mothers and their babies have been exposed to illnesses resulting from malnutrition. A UNICEF spokesperson warned that children who are experiencing acute malnutrition are particularly vulnerable and their likelihood of dying from simple causes is up to 10 times higher than that of a child elsewhere. He added that access to hospitals in Gaza is no longer safe for ill or malnourished children. That is not a tactic of war; that is a war crime. The deliberate denial of humanitarian aid, the bombing of aid convoys and the killing of people who simply seek to access food and water has to be condemned.

It is my view that we have to stand firm in calling for a permanent ceasefire and that a pause is not enough. We should support the call for the British Government to suspend arms sales to Israel. How can we speak of peace when supplying the weapons that perpetuate some of this destruction?

We also welcome the actions of Queen's University, Trinity and others that have divested from companies that are complicit in the brutality. I offer some disagreement to Mr Beattie's assertion that boycotting and divestment is a privileged stance that offers no impact. We have seen that work before, and we know that it works. Their stand is a powerful reminder that we all have a role to play in advancing peace and justice, and we owe it to the people of Gaza and to everyone who is affected by this conflict — every mother grieving a child, every father searching rubble for survivors and every child who has known nothing but war — to demand an end to this horror and to press pause, not just for peace but for a just peace and to reaffirm our shared humanity.

Mr Frew: I am absolutely astounded by the position of the SDLP and the Alliance Party. Why have I picked those two parties out from all the rest? It is because I do not believe for one moment that those two parties, the SDLP and Alliance, would produce a motion like this. If I were to see the motion and the amendment side by side, I would put money on Alliance and the SDLP going with the UUP amendment or producing something like that themselves.

I am absolutely appalled that they have got themselves stuck in the debate supporting what I can only describe as propaganda. For the Alliance Party to base that support only on the divestment and arms trade is astounding. It is absolutely astounding.

A Member: It is huge.

Mr Frew: It is huge.

The Foreign Secretary announced the suspension of around 30 of approximately 350 arms export licences to Israel. If he were to ban all of them, it would do two things: Israelis would get their arms from somewhere else, and you would lose trade; and you could risk leaving a nation state not being able to defend itself. Of course, that is exactly what the motion alludes to. Sinn Féin will produce a motion such as this no bother — absolutely no bother — but I find it astounding that the SDLP and Alliance have attached themselves to it. It is astounding. It is absolutely astounding.

I must say that the UUP has acted honourably and admirably in its amendment, demonstrating lived experience of a war scenario and what it feels like to be in a war. I applaud the UUP for that and give it credit. Sinn Féin will associate itself with all ranks and measures of terrorism. It will align itself with and be an apologist for the IRA. It will align itself with and be an apologist for FARC terrorists in Colombia. It will align itself with and apologise for the atrocities of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Basque terrorists. It comes as second nature to Sinn Féin. It is what Sinn Féin is.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Brooks: How many of those friends does Sinn Féin mention, do you think, when it is fundraising in the United States of America?

Mr Frew: I 100% agree on that point.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Frew: That is what Sinn Féin is. How did the Alliance Party and the SDLP fall into that trap, and how could they turn their nose up at an amendment that holds Israel to account? It holds Israel to account. It does not say anything pro-Netanyahu; in fact, I was in Israel, and I found it hard to find somebody who supported Netanyahu. The amendment is exactly what you are looking for and exactly what you need, yet you will align yourselves with Sinn Féin, which will produce propaganda for its terrorist bedfellows, and you will lump it, swallow it and walk into the Lobby with Sinn Féin. I just do not understand the position, in particular, of the Alliance Party. I understand that the SDLP may be playing to a base to try to out-green the green Sinn Féin, but be aware of your actions, because every action has a consequence. Not once do I see in the motion anything about the depravity of 7 October.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. Just for absolute clarity, let me say that our party takes its commitment to non-violence so seriously that it hardly needs saying. We put down the first motion in the Chamber that condemned the actions on 7 October along with the grotesque and disproportionate acts of the Israeli Government.

Furthermore, the Member said something that is not true. He said that the UUP amendment condemns the Israeli Government. It does no such thing. It condemns the attacks carried out by Hamas — fair enough — but it then goes on to simply express concern about the actions of the Israeli Government. If he is going to condemn us, he should read the text of what he is supporting.

Mr Frew: I have. Of course, there is a "but" with every —.

Mr Speaker: Mr Frew, please take your seat.

When Mr Frew was speaking, a Member shouted, "Shut up". Nobody will be shut up in the Chamber. If that person or any other person wants to do that again, they will be shut up by the Chair. That is not the way in which we conduct ourselves in the Chamber. We have had plenty of to and fro from all sides, and I encourage that, but we will not have that type of behaviour. Thank you.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Of course, when the SDLP speaks, there is always a "but" with regard to the motions that it brings forward.

Let me speak to the UUP amendment. I will put "I" in front of this.

I express:

I reject:

I support:

I could read on, but that is the amendment that I want to support and that I can align myself with. Where is the Alliance Party? Where is the SDLP? They need to take a good look at themselves.

Ms Hunter: I am baffled at the tone used by some across the Chamber. The use of "however" and "but" after we discuss the impact of the bombing, maiming, starvation and slaughter of innocent children is absolutely abhorrent.

In the North of Ireland, Northern Ireland or whatever Members wish to call it, we have a profound and innate understand of how conflict has shaped who we are, our families and the place that we call "home". We are aware of trans-generational trauma. We are aware of the true human cost of retaliation. I am dumbfounded at how many in the Chamber boast about the sanctity of life, just not when it applies to innocent Palestinian children.

Last year in the House, we highlighted atrocities and condemned Hamas, yet many still did not vote for our motion. The motion took a balanced, nuanced approach, but it was still not supported. This has been a disappointing debate for all the wrong reasons, so let me please return to what matters, which is the important issue of the suffering of the Palestinian people.

I thank colleagues to my left for tabling what is an important motion that highlights the ongoing genocide in Gaza, which is a stain on the collective West. Those who have remained silent in the condemnation of Israel or have sought to lessen, deflect attention from or excuse the atrocities perpetrated by the IDF fail not only the innocent people of Gaza but the idea that the West is seriously interested in international law or human rights. Thankfully, however, for the better part of the past two years, people across this island have stood in solidarity with the Palestinian people. From street marches and rallies such as the one that I attended at the weekend in Derry to charity events and student movements in our universities, people across the island have demonstrated time and time again their horror at the war crimes and their solidarity with the people of Palestine, who have suffered immensely through brutality and starvation and are without water or warmth. We cannot continue to ignore that.

The British Government should be ashamed. They continue to supply Israel with arms exports that feed the IDF machine. Keir Starmer is unapologetic for doing so, and I find that utterly shameful. Just recently, a video that I watched online showed a child whose limbs had been blown off begging a doctor to kill him, as the rest of his family had been killed. I find it grotesque that any Member of this House or any MP in the moral headquarters of Westminster cannot condemn that level of violence. To them I say this: find a backbone.

As children in Gaza struggle to find aid, as they scavenge for food and as they risk life and limb to live one more day, the British Government continue to indulge what can be defined only as a genocide. Either we believe in the importance and sacred nature of international law or we do not. Either we believe that genocide is always wrong or we do not. Either we believe that we have a responsibility to oppose rogue states or we do not. Either we believe that we must support all those facing suffering or we do not.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: No.

The tragedy of 7 October cannot be overstated. It was horrific and inhumane, but it is not a justification for the bombardment and starving of the innocent people of Palestine ever since. I have been told by many in Westminster that I should not voice my criticisms of the British Government on the issue, as it is above my pay grade. To them, I say this today: Gaza is the greatest moral issue of our time, and I sure as hell will use every opportunity inside and outside this House to highlight the profound, disgraceful suffering that innocent children have faced. Innocent children deserve the ability to be just that and not to have to suffer and starve. Shame on the British Government, who are aiding and abetting the suffering of those innocent children.

Mr Gaston: The hypocrisy of Sinn Féin knows no bounds. There is no mention in the motion of the terrorist attacks on 7 October. There is no mention of the years during which the Israeli people have suffered at the hands of the anti-God alliance from the countries that surround them. There is no mention of the abuse that Jewish people have suffered and continue to suffer across the world. Every country has a right to defend itself against terrorism and to fulfil its obligations to protect its people and innocent lives.

When a motion comes before the House, it is worth checking who has signed it. Today, we are asked to support a motion that condemns war crimes, attacks on civilians, the use of starvation as a weapon, the bombing of hospitals and the traumatising of innocents. I have no problem with any of that. The lofty words, strong language and phrases are designed to stir the conscience, but, when I look at the signatories to the motion, what do I see? I see the name of Pat Sheehan, a Member who would have us believe that he cares about international law, humanitarian principles and the wounds inflicted on civilians. Let us test that claim. He is a man who bombed a cash and carry — not a military base or a government facility but a commercial business. He is a man who went on hunger strike alongside Thomas McElwee, who burned a young woman to death in a shop not in a war zone but in my constituency of North Antrim. The House is now being lectured by him on the sanctity of civilian life. Sinn Féin wants to talk about the psychological and emotional wounds suffered in Gaza. What about those inflicted at Claudy and La Mon or on Bloody Friday? Sinn Féin speaks about emotion and the orphans of Rafah, but it had no tears for the orphans of Enniskillen.

The motion condemns the bombing of hospitals —.

Mr McGuigan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I allowed a bit of latitude, thinking that the Speaker might interject

and bring the Member back to the motion that we are discussing. I raise that through a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, if you can get back to Gaza, that would be useful.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. I am comparing those who have tabled the motion, and I am judging them and testing the claims that they have made.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Mr Brooks.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that, earlier in the debate, we were asked to turn our faces to what is happening in Gaza, but many would like us to turn our faces away from the legacy of the party opposite.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Please get back to Gaza.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. Mr McGuigan has laid bare the fact that he wants us to turn away from what his party has supported in the past.

We are talking about condemning the bombing of hospitals, but let us remember that on 2 November 1991 the IRA bombed Musgrave hospital. Two were murdered, and 10 were injured, one of whom was a five-year-old girl.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, thank you. You have covered that quite well now. Will you get back to Gaza, please?

Mr Gaston: Yes, Mr Speaker.

We move on to the targeting of paramedics and aid workers. Gerald Tucker, a 37-year-old hospital porter, was murdered — shot — as he left the hospital morgue at the Royal because he was an off-duty UDR man. The motion's signatories condemn the denial of humanitarian aid, yet, to this day, Sinn Féin denies the families of the disappeared even a grave to weep beside.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: The motion speaks of war crimes, yet its genesis is in a movement that planted bombs in pubs, shops and hospitals across Northern Ireland. When Sinn Féin and its Members are compared —.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, please. I have asked you three or four times to come back to Gaza. That is what the debate is about. You wanted to make a point. You have made that point. You have exhausted that point. If you are going to continue with that line, I will ask you to desist, but, if you want to speak about Gaza, you can continue.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will bring my remarks back to some of the phrases that we have heard today. We heard phrases such as "human rights"; "war crimes"; "crimes against humanity"; "ethnic cleansing"; and "death, destruction and devastation". My oh my, does that not sum up Sinn Féin and the IRA and what they bestowed on this country for years. I hear Ms Hargey chuntering from the sidelines. She is the woman who was in the toilet when Robert McCartney was murdered. My goodness, they like to turn their face. They do not like to be reminded of what we had.

The loss of innocent lives is wrong. I must come back to this point: it is absolutely in Sinn Féin's DNA to bring forward a motion such as this, but I challenge the SDLP and the Alliance Party. Please, oh please, reflect on your position. Do not attach yourselves as bedfellows to Sinn Féin and its terrorist-supporting actions. My goodness, you are saying that you could not support the motion if mention of the arms were taken out. If you remove the arms and remove the support for Israelis, and what will happen? The anti-God alliance will surround them. That is what Sinn Féin wants.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: It wants free rein for its terrorist-supporting sympathisers — the terrorists in Hamas.

Mr Carroll: It is important in any debate, but especially this one, to be accurate. No Israeli babies were beheaded or put in ovens on 7 October or thereafter. That was a myth that was propagated by an Israeli colonel, or an army general, called Golan Vach. What did happen, though, was that Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl, was assassinated by the IDF. Her family car had 335 bullet holes put in it, but I note that there was no mention of that by the parties to my right.

We are now 20 months and at least 55,000 deaths —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He has fleetingly mentioned some of his account of 7 October without any form of condemnation of the murder of over 1,000 people. Does he not find that grossly inappropriate?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: Thank you. The Member talked about context, but I remind him that this violence did not start on 7 October 2023.

Mr Buckley: When did it start?

Mr Carroll: Go and look at history book. If you look up the word al-Nakba, you will find that it started well before that. Researchers believe that, at the moment, the death toll could be twice as high, with almost 100,000 people killed by Israel. That is according to 'The Lancet' — not the Lancet Hamas journal but the scientific journal.

Israel acts with impunity while the West does nothing. On 1 May, heavy military transport took off from an Israeli airbase and stopped off the coast of Malta. In the seas below, a passenger vessel was carrying food and medicine for the people of Gaza — civilians who were sick, starving and dying due to a two-month aid blockade imposed by Israel. While the Israeli military plane circled above, suicide drones rocked the ship below. At risk of sinking, the ship was forced to stop, and its aid was left undelivered. If a rival of the West launched a potentially lethal attack on a humanitarian vessel just outside the territorial waters of an EU member state, there would be global outrage and, I suspect, sanctions, but Israel is an ally of the West, not an enemy. It seems that, in this debate, everyone bar Israel is the enemy, so no punishment is required.

There are no consequences for a state that has produced the largest number of child amputees in modern history, not to mention that it has killed the most journalists in all wars. The West does not crack down on a state that attacks Iran, Israel's biggest rival in the Middle East, under the pretext of Iran having nuclear weapons. It does not. Israel's war on Iran will not disrupt its genocidal agenda in Gaza. It will provide only a smokescreen and further cover for this Israeli state to act with even less scrutiny. Each inhumane assault from Israel is a continuation of a bloodthirsty campaign that is marked by impunity and freedom from punishment.

It seems that there is no limit to what the world will let Israel get away with and what the parties to my right will defend at all costs. As Israel bombs its sixth neighbouring territory in less than two years, the US and Europe continue to politically and materially protect this rogue state. Israel's genocide against Palestinians does not signify a breakdown in international law or a lapse in global justice. Israel's continued impunity is proof that international law is working exactly as intended. The Western legal machine upholds power imbalances, it facilitates the genocide of Palestinians, and it allows liberal democracies to ignore and even assist Israel's apartheid regime. That is how Israel gets away with using starvation as a weapon of war. It uses international law to its advantage, backed by Europe and the US. War crimes are denied, dismissed or watered down in colonial, bureaucratic diplomacy. That is why the UUP's amendment refers to Israel's self-defence — we know what that means — rather than illegal occupation. The UUP talks about a military campaign rather than a genocide, which is what is happening. Ultimately, justice will not come from international courts or resolutions while international law is not enforced and arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant are ignored. Justice can come only from grassroots movements piling on the pressure and punishing Israel when Western states and our legal institutions refuse to do so.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned grassroots activists. It is clear that the movement to support Gaza and Palestine is not a Sinn Féin movement. It is not a political movement at all. It is the movement of people: the Mothers Against Genocide and the Gaels for Gaza. Those are the activists on the ground. We stand with them, absolutely, but it is those people's movement. It is not a political movement; it is a movement for right.

Mr Carroll: I agree with the Member that it is a broad-based movement with different strategies and trends. It is a global, peaceful movement. It is worth Members in the House remembering that it is made up of many Jewish people in Britain, America and across the world.

I welcome the fact that, as the motion states, Queen's and Trinity are divesting from Israeli companies. That is progress, but there is more work for Queen's and others to do. I also support the motion's call:

That demand is placed on the British Government, and I do not oppose that, but the motion fails to acknowledge the Executive's ongoing complicity in arming Israel's genocidal regime. Just under £20 million of public money was given by Invest NI to four companies that operate in the North and make component parts for F-35 jets, the same jets that dropped three 2,000 lb bombs on a so-called safe zone in Gaza last July, but the Economy Minister will not own up to the Executive's complicity. As reported in the detail, officials use narrow definitions —.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Carroll: OK.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have five minutes, Mr Butler.

Mr Butler: Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I will whizz through my speech and then address some of the points that were made.

It was important for us to offer an amendment today, because the sense that I get from the motion and from the Member for West Belfast who has just spoken — he talked about divesting from Israel — is that some people would divest Israel from the river to the sea. This is not about Israel's actions since Hamas's attack on 7 October. Those people would divest from Israel regardless of Israel's actions. Our amendment, however, calls out Israel. It deplores some of the actions that Israel has taken, and I will get to that.

We needed to table the amendment, because the motion needed balance. Our amendment, unlike the motion, affirms that every child, whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, is of equal value. If anyone suggests that they are not supporting it because the word "genocide" is missing, they will be hit back with the fact that they do not see every child as having equal value. That is what they will not be supporting if they do not support our amendment.

The motion includes really important elements, and I agree with much of it — the call for a ceasefire, the demand for humanitarian aid and the emphasis on human rights — but it also presents a partial account of a deeply complex situation. We have a deeply complex situation. It is incredibly complex. It is often referred to in this place, and some of us do not even understand it.

Minister, you are just in, and you are making noises. You have missed most of the debate. Please do not make noises when you were not here for the debate.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mrs Long: Excuse me.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: No. If you do not mind, I will try to use my time.

Mr Buckley: Just briefly.

Mr Butler: Very briefly.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I did not miss most of the debate. I was working in my office and was listening keenly to the debate. Secondly, if you look around the Chamber, you will see plenty of people who will have spoken to their colleagues throughout the debate. It is not for Mr Butler to call me to order. I understood that you were the Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: I will respond to that momentarily. Yesterday, there were complaints about chuntering. I said that it was acceptable yesterday, and it is acceptable today.

Mr Butler: I will accept that from the Speaker. To be honest, however, I would not mind chuntering from someone who was in the Chamber about something that was said before. I will give way to the Member from Upper Bann.

Mr Buckley: The Member was talking about looking at our particular conflict and drawing some comparisons. I draw his attention to John Hume's belief that no conflict is ever resolved by saying that one side is right. Rather, a lasting solution must respect the aspiration of both communities.

Mr Speaker: I will give the Member an extra minute because there is additional time left.

Mr Butler: I really appreciate that. The Member has made a really good point. There was a point in the debate where we talked about the Alliance Party and the SDLP calling out Hamas in previous motions. A quick check, however, revealed that those motions were never just about single issues: there was always a bit of balance. That is what we sought to do today. [Interruption.]

There is always a but. The Member from North Antrim, who is not here now, also talked about the "but", but introduced the "but", because there is nuance and there is a story behind the story.

We have to be absolutely clear here. There were acts of terror on 7 October 2023. Hamas, backed by the Iranian regime, carried out the deadliest assault on Jewish people since the Holocaust. Over 1,200 Israelis were murdered: civilians were burned alive in their homes, children were executed and more than 250 people were taken hostage. No reasonable or responsible Parliament would fail to condemn such atrocities. Equally, however, we cannot look away from what has happened in Gaza in the months since then. Whilst we would say that Israel has the right to defend itself, it does not have the right to unlimited military action. The conduct and scale of its military campaign has caused immense civilian destruction. Entire communities lie in ruins: schools, hospitals and refugee camps have been bombed and thousands of people, many of them children, have died.

I will not stand up here and defend any country or any military force that kills children and innocent civilians. It is not wrong to say that that is what our amendment does: it gives balance. It says that that is deplorable. [Interruption.]

Mr Butler: I will take nothing from someone who tweeted on 7 October and said "Up the resistance". [Interruption.]

A Member: Quite right.

A Member: Shame.

Mr Butler: We have witnessed the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid and the denial of food, water, fuel and medicine into Gaza. That is not a tragic accident of war: it was a systemic and calculated denial of human dignity. I suggest that it contravenes the Geneva Convention in the sense of lawful military conduct. No Government can or should justify starvation as a weapon.

Our amendment responds to all of that. It condemns terrorism and:

It rejects collective punishment and forced displacement. It calls for immediate access for aid and medicine and the urgent release of all hostages. It acknowledges Iran's destabilising influence through its ongoing support of Hamas and other proxy forces.

As we all did, Mr Speaker, I am sure that you woke up this morning to uncertain and unconfirmed reports of a possible ceasefire between Israel and Iran. While some have welcomed that as a breakthrough, the situation remains highly volatile. Iran has denied any formal agreement, as far as I know, and there are already claims of violations from both sides. We must, however, be clear-eyed: a few hours of quiet does not signal peace. Nevertheless, even the whisper of de-escalation should compel renewed diplomatic pressure to turn fragile moments into lasting change. This should not be about taking sides but about defending humanity and the rule of law. It is about demanding a future where Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and security through a credible two-state solution.

Our amendment is principled and honest and, by golly, it is absolutely necessary, given the state of the debate today. I urge Members to support our amendment. I urge the Alliance Party and the SDLP to reflect on the points that I have made, particularly about balance and that Palestinian children and Israeli children are of equal value. That is in our amendment but is missing from the motion. This is a complex issue, but we need to deal with it with compassion, clarity and accuracy.

Mr Speaker: I call Ms Sheerin. You have up to 10 minutes.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I have listened with intent to today's debate on a motion that we proposed in the hope that this would be an opportunity for a reasonable debate in which people would consider their position. I urge the Members on the opposite Benches to think about the position that they have taken today. Just because you have always been on the wrong side of history does not mean that you have to stay there. [Interruption.] [Laughter.]

You can change. Just as the Member said, you can turn your face and think about the facts that are laid in front of you and you can change your position. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Sheerin: Since coming to the House, I have had conversations with people of all persuasions and with different opinions from mine on a range of issues, There are political ideologies that I do not understand, but I recognise their validity. I understand that there are people who want to remain within the Union of the United Kingdom. It is something that I cannot understand, but I see it as having merit and as a valid political objective. However, there are political ideologies that I will never understand —.

Mr Chambers: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Just one wee second.

Political ideologies based on racism, sectarianism and hatred in your heart. I will never understand that or see it as being valid. Those views thrive on ignorance and misinformation, and that is what the debate that we are having today is based on.

The Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people has been allowed to happen because of ignorance, misinformation and propaganda. The mainstream attitude to the way it has unfolded has allowed it to unfold. The impunity offered to the Israeli Government is what has allowed them to murder over 52,000 people. That is what has allowed it to happen. We have to stand against it. Those views originate in capitalism and control of the people, as evidenced by how difficult it is to follow BDS, and anyone who has attempted to will see that. More and more products and companies are being added to that list every day. It is widespread, and it is all around us. It is not a war. There is no balancing it. It is a decades-long assault on a population — a population that we in Sinn Féin have solidarity with and have had for decades. I am proud of that.

The character of some of my colleagues has been assaulted today. Just as the people of West Belfast and South Belfast have given Miss Hargey and Mr Sheehan repeated mandates, we are proud of their record on rights and what they stand for. I am proud to call them colleagues, and I want to put that on the record.

Mr Beattie speaks of balance —.

Mr Chambers: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: I have not given way to you.

Mr Chambers: You said that you would in a minute.

Ms Sheerin: I did not say that.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Sheerin: Mr Beattie speaks of balance, and other Members have spoken about how they view all children as being equal. It is the continued misrepresentation of the situation as a conflict that allows for those children to be murdered. It is not a conflict. It is not a war; it is a genocide. It has been going on for decades. The Member for East Belfast, who is no longer in the Chamber, referred to Hamas as having started this. Hamas did not exist in 1948. This did not start on 7 October 2023, and that is what the motion is about. It is about reflecting the fact that it is the result of years and years of oppression of a people.

Talking about bomb shelters that some people have access to, the Palestinian people have tents. The bombs are raining down on them, and they are in tents. They have been in tents for years. Those people are living under occupation. They are a couple of miles from the sea, and they have never seen the beach. They are not allowed to move freely within their own country. That is where we are. That is what is happening, and the world is moving along. People refer to taking cues from Instagram and TikTok: that is how we see what is happening, because the mainstream media are "other siding" every element of the debate, talking about balance where there can be no balance. Whataboutery does nothing to end the suffering —

Mr Beattie: Will the Member give way, please?

Ms Sheerin: No, I will not — of the people of Palestine.

As of two days ago, there were 377,000 people reported missing, and 178 journalists have been murdered — two of those were Israeli. There is no balance there. This is not balanced. No fuel entered the Gaza Strip in three months; aid was blocked for months; and flour was delivered to people and they were attacked upon its arrival.

Those people have for decades used the watermelon as a symbol because they were not allowed to fly their flag. They have been completely suppressed. One day, everyone will have been against this. We in Sinn Féin always have been, and today is an opportunity for the Assembly to add its name to that list.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Members. It was an emotive debate, but we got through it not too badly. Members expressed their views strongly, and that is fair enough.

Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Speaker: Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, everybody? Now we move on to a civilised debate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Diana Armstrong to raise the matter of access to justice and legal services in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Diana, you have up to 15 minutes. After that, depending on the number of Members who wish to speak, we will work out how long each person has. Over to you.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome those attending this evening, particularly those in the Public Gallery. Thank you all for waiting for this length of time. We have Colin Mitchell, president of the Law Society of Northern Ireland, and he has some colleagues with him. You are welcome to hear the Adjournment debate.

I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber this evening, and I look forward to her consideration of and response to the topic being addressed. I thank my fellow MLAs from Fermanagh and South Tyrone in advance for their contributions to the debate that will follow.

Recently, the Law Society invited MLAs in County Fermanagh to attend a meeting to share concerns about access to justice and legal services in the county. The debate seeks to speak for legal practitioners not just in Fermanagh but in neighbouring rural constituencies who face similar issues and pressures. At the outset, I acknowledge the vital role played by solicitors in ensuring access to justice in rural areas such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Those services are an essential part of the local community, delivering services that no other organisation can deliver at a grassroots level, such as residential conveyancing, commercial transactions, wills, probate, family matters and support in court cases. Out of the just over 430 private practice solicitor firms in Northern Ireland, there are only 16 such firms in the whole of County Fermanagh. Whilst I quote Fermanagh in this instance, it is understood that South Tyrone shares similar pro rata statistics.

The majority of those firms are small, and they struggle with the rising costs of doing business, such as increased National Insurance contributions; rates payable; the recruitment and retention of staff; the constant need for staff upskilling to ensure that they offer the most up-to-date and reliable service; access to training in new and developing digital technologies such as AI; and, indeed, succession planning. Of the 16 firms in County Fermanagh, at least three have ceased to provide legal aid in recent years. Stagnant fees, payment delays and increased bureaucracy in the system have discouraged firms from taking on legal aid-assisted cases due to the impact that those factors have on their economic sustainability. The downturn in those taking legal aid cases risks creating a dearth of access to justice in Fermanagh, and most likely the same scenario is experienced in South Tyrone, and that affects access to legal services for the most vulnerable in our society.

Law practices in Northern Ireland represent around 63% of legal sector activity. Their work was valued at approximately £460 million in 2019.

Solicitor firms are significant employers not just of legal talent and secretarial staff but of administrators and financial staff. Over 100 jobs have been created within the 16 firms in Fermanagh. The Adjournment topic is an appeal to the Minister to support those small law firms and value the role that they play in the community.

Despite the contribution that the sector makes to the economy, significant challenges in recruitment and retention present in rural constituencies. The 2022 Hook Tangaza report, 'The Solicitor Profession in Northern Ireland', states:

At post-qualifying stage, rural firms pay salaries in the region of £17,000 to £22,000 per annum, whilst alternative, larger legal service providers can offer salaries of £50,000-plus per annum and more flexible working arrangements. With salaries like that on offer, you can imagine where newly qualified solicitors would prefer to start their careers. Tempting, higher salaries mean that smaller rural practices, such as those in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, face genuine struggles to attract qualified solicitors who will put down roots in the area and become part of an established team that offers professional services to the community.

It is especially difficult in rural practices when certain cases require solicitors to be on call during the night. That can mean that a solicitor who lives in, say, Lisnaskea will be required to attend a police station custody suite in Strabane in the early hours of the morning. Imagine what it is like for a solicitor to have to travel on rural roads at that time in the morning to deal with the case that has presented and then to travel home again, knowing that they may have caring responsibilities at home and a full day's work awaiting them in the morning. If you imagine that, you can clearly see how a rural practice is seriously disadvantaged by its peripherality and distance from services.

In March 2018, the custody suite in Enniskillen PSNI station closed for refurbishment works. Those works were delayed, and, in November 2021, the decision was taken, without consultation, to close the custody suite permanently. Why was that decision taken? Why was an impact assessment not carried out? Minister, I would like to know the answer to those questions. The next nearest custody suite to Enniskillen, at that time, was Omagh, which has a 10-cell suite. In October 2023, it was announced that it would close for 12 months for refurbishment works. It remains closed today. The nearest custody suite to which Fermanagh PSNI can bring arraigned individuals is Strabane, which has a six-person cell. That is a designated custody suite for County Fermanagh, Omagh, Strabane and surrounding areas. That custody suite is regularly over capacity at weekends, meaning that the PSNI officers have to take individuals who were arrested in County Fermanagh to other custody suites, such as those in Waterside, Antrim or Lurgan. That ties up valuable PSNI resources. The removal of officers from their local area impacts on response times and on their ability to progress ongoing investigations, placing additional pressures on the remaining resources in the rural area.

Local solicitors tell of encountering a range of clients in the custody setting. The majority of clients could be classed as being vulnerable due to educational, mental health or economic challenges. Following their arrest and interview, clients are expected to make their own way home from Strabane or further afield. In addition, clients are often required to return to custody on subsequent occasions to sign their bail or undergo further interviews. Inadequate bus timetables from County Fermanagh to Strabane often eliminate public transport as a viable option for clients who are travelling to and from custody. A single taxi fare from Enniskillen to Strabane can cost between £80 and £100. In limited circumstances, to bring a client home from custody, police will provide a taxi service, in the rear of a police vehicle, for the most vulnerable who have no means to pay for transport. There is a question as to whether that is an effective use of police resources.

For local legal practices, that means that solicitors for the Fermanagh and South Tyrone area who are called to attend custody suites face travelling long distances with the PSNI custody teams to areas with which they are not familiar, often at unsociable hours. Minister, will you tell us whether you agree that that is acceptable? That is hardly a proposition to attract solicitors to rural practices.

Equally, local solicitors face the burden of long travel when attending court sittings. Enniskillen courthouse is open only three days a week, primarily for the delivery of Magistrates' Court business. Court hearings are increasingly being centralised in Omagh and beyond, yet again adding difficulties for solicitors in increased travel time, additional costs, stress and pressure. For example, the nearest Crown Court sits in Dungannon, meaning a 100-mile round trip from Irvinestown or Enniskillen. Practitioners will tell you of the difficulties encountered by their clients in attending courts. As one local solicitor stated, "Justice delayed is justice denied, but, in Fermanagh, justice is no longer just delayed: it is geographically out of reach".

Lack of access to courts also means that solicitors face difficulties in lodging court documents, often travelling across the country when required to do so. Locally, I am told by solicitors that requests for Land Registry documents are a huge challenge due to the time that it takes for documents to be retrieved. That has a knock-on effect on the justice system. It slows the entire process down, costs money and time, and lowers the confidence of the public in the justice system. Minister, is it only rural practices that face those delays? Is it because of their size that they do not receive a timely service and retrieval of information from the Land Registry?

The Minister for the Economy seeks to grow the economy with the subregional economic plan for regional balance throughout Northern Ireland. Regional balance should equally apply to legal services. In rural areas, we have seen a number of essential services lost — local banks, community transport services, emergency general surgery at the South West Acute Hospital — and facilities closed, albeit temporarily, such as Fermanagh Lakeland Forum for an estimated three-year rebuilding programme. The removal of those services has the potential to reduce the level of residential business footfall in the area, as people want to live closer to acceptable services. It could be the death knell for local legal practices if we do not take cognisance of the consequences of those withdrawals. We cannot let that happen to legal practices that offer such valuable professional services in rural towns and communities.

I thank the Law Society for its sterling work in supporting law practices regionally and for recognising the value of their specialised work. I also refer to the Department of Justice's enabling access to justice programme, which explicitly recognises the need to modernise and reform how justice is delivered, with particular emphasis on removing barriers for rural and disadvantaged communities. I therefore call on you, Minister, to review the closure of Enniskillen custody suite, the decision on which was predicated on occupancy metrics during the COVID pandemic period. I ask you to implement short-term solutions, such as part-time or weekend custody services in County Fermanagh, to alleviate pressure and improve access; to protect and restore the rural legal infrastructure, including local court hearings and police facilities, to ensure fair, proportionate and effective justice delivery; to collaborate with the Law Society and rural solicitors to identify service gaps and develop sustainable, long-term strategies for the legal profession; and to develop and publish a rural justice access strategy that aligns with statutory and policy commitments to ensure equitable justice provision across Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call Áine Murphy, I should say that we have now allocated seven minutes to each Member who speaks.

Ms Murphy: First, I thank our constituency colleague for securing the Adjournment debate this evening. I will highlight the growing and deeply concerning issue of limited access to justice and legal services across Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Access to the justice system is not a luxury. It is a fundamental human right, yet, in our rural areas, it is increasingly under threat. I also thank the Law Society for meeting us a number of weeks ago, along with some local solicitors, many of whom operate family-run practices, who took the time to highlight the challenges that they face across the profession.

The crisis has not emerged overnight. It is the result of a range of compounding factors: chronic underfunding of legal aid; significant difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified legal staff; rising operational and insurance costs for small rural practices; and, crucially, the degradation and, in some cases, outright closure of our local justice infrastructure of courthouses, offices and support services.

Constituents who seek legal representation are often already in vulnerable, stressful or traumatic circumstances. Whether people are facing eviction, navigating a family breakdown or in need of support through criminal proceedings, that is when they need the system to work for them, not against them. Too often, however, they are met with delay, inaccessibility and confusion. We cannot allow rural communities to become legal deserts. We urgently need targeted interventions; incentives for young solicitors to work and remain in our rural practices; support for specialisation in areas of high demand; investment in modern, accessible infrastructure that allows for hybrid hearings and digital case management; and, above all, meaningful engagement with the legal professionals who work on the ground and see it day in, day out. They see where the pressures are, and they know how they can be addressed.

It is not just about legal services; it is about fairness and equity. It is about ensuring that, no matter where you live, be it in Dunmurry or Derrylin, you have the same right to be heard, to be represented and to access justice and legal services when you need them most.

Mrs Erskine: I thank my constituency colleague Diana Armstrong for securing this Adjournment debate. It is a by-product of a recent meeting that we had in our constituency, which party MLAs attended, with representatives from the Law Society and local solicitor firms. I welcome those in the Public Gallery who have travelled to join us. Having your support today is much appreciated.

Laid bare at that meeting was a matter of growing concern that strikes at the core of public confidence in our legal system and the principle that justice should be equally available to all, regardless of geography. Access to justice in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is under serious strain. I know that it is an issue right across Northern Ireland. The Chair of the Justice Committee, who has joined us, and I have talked about that a number of times. However, adding rurality to the issue brings a different component to it. At present, as has been said in the Chamber, there are just 16 private practice solicitor firms in Fermanagh. Three of those firms have already ceased to provide legal aid services in recent years due to a number of factors, such as stagnant fees, delays in payment and increased bureaucracy in the system.

Let me begin, however, with the most symbolic and practical representation of justice in our communities: our courthouses. As it stands, in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Enniskillen courthouse is operational on only three days a week, primarily for Magistrates' Court business, as was mentioned. Enniskillen courthouse was once central to administrative justice in the region, but its reduced opening times leave constituents and members of the profession with no local venue in which to access vital court services. People who are required to attend hearings must now travel longer distances, often to Omagh, Dungannon or beyond. Such journeys are neither reasonable nor fair, particularly for those with mobility issues, limited financial means or caring responsibilities. A justice system that requires people to travel an hour or more to seek redress or to defend their rights is not truly accessible. Frankly, it is a structural inequality.

The problem is compounded by the rural nature of the district, which has a knock-on impact on policing in our area. Our constituency spans vast geographic distances, and transport infrastructure is limited. In such a setting, police officers are expected to cover immense areas with minimal backup and insufficient resources. Yet, rather than investing to meet that rural challenge, we see decisions being taken that further weaken our justice system and policing capacity, chief amongst which are the closure of the Enniskillen custody suite and the delayed refurbishment of the Omagh custody suite. I recently wrote again to the Chief Constable about that.

The timescale for the completion of the Omagh custody suite has now doubled. It is now expected to be completed by October 2025, having closed in October 2023. The situation is unacceptable and unsustainable. Officers also now have to transport arrested persons significant distances, and my constituency colleague Diana Armstrong spoke about the size of other custody suites. Doing that not only ties up front-line officers for extended periods but reduces on-the-ground capacity, disrupts investigations and impacts on victims and witnesses who are awaiting justice. It is deeply concerning that the two principal urban centres in the west of Northern Ireland, Enniskillen and Omagh, have no custody provision at all at present. Has the Minister been involved in discussions with the Chief Constable and local police about that?

Finally, I must speak about the serious challenge that we face in recruiting and retaining legal professionals in rural areas. The legal sector in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is experiencing real difficulty in attracting solicitors, barristers and support staff. Support staff in particular are crucial to the delivery and administration of the work that goes on in practices. That leaves existing legal practices under pressure and unable to meet demand, and it narrows access for the public to legal advice and representation. I record my thanks to those legal practices and their workers, who are going above and beyond to provide that access to people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

I will touch on the need to attract women into the legal profession. There are major challenges for people who have to travel long distances and work unsocial hours while meeting family demands. Solicitors work unsocial hours, and those from our constituency are travelling long distances to provide a service. Justice should not depend on one's postcode, and I urge the Minister of Justice to acknowledge the specific challenges facing Fermanagh and South Tyrone and to act decisively to reverse the trend. What options is the Minister actively considering in order to reverse that trend? There is a host of other issues facing the legal system, and I have highlighted just a few in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Some of the issues are compounded by my constituency's rural nature, and I urge the Minister not just to use the phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied" but to live by it. We need action from her and the Department now.

Miss Dolan: I also thank my constituency colleague Diana Armstrong for securing the Adjournment debate. Ensuring that our constituents have access to justice and legal services is vital and is an area in which numerous challenges have been encountered in recent years. The need for progress to be made on resolving those challenges has been highlighted in the fundamental review of criminal legal aid, in the holistic review of civil legal aid and in the steps being taken through the enabling access to justice reform programme.

Every individual should have the ability to access justice, regardless of geography, circumstances or financial situation. It is the cornerstone of our justice system, which is why the concerns about the level of remuneration and delayed payments that the legal profession has raised need to be addressed. Many of us will have had numerous engagements with solicitors and barristers over recent years in which they have outlined the pressures that underfunding has placed on their profession, with firms struggling to recruit and retain staff. I have also spoken with constituents who have encountered long waiting times for processing their case, which is delaying their access to justice. The uplift that was recommended in the fundamental review of criminal legal aid is a step in the right direction towards improving remuneration levels.

We also need to see adequate investment in the courts and tribunals estate to ensure that buildings are fit for purpose while also providing facilities that limit travelling distance for our people. As a representative of a largely rural area, I am particularly conscious of the service that solicitors provide. It requires broad knowledge and expertise, including of conveyancing, family law, criminal legal aid and personal injury. I therefore ask the Minister and her Department to do all that they can to protect legal services and ensure that the profession is supported and its concerns resolved.

Ms Egan: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I will contribute some short remarks on access to justice and legal services in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Obviously, I am not an MLA for that area, but, as a member of the Justice Committee, I recognise how important that issue is. I thank Diana Armstrong for securing the debate this evening, putting a spotlight on these issues and highlighting the importance of high-quality legal and justice-related provision across Northern Ireland.

It is imperative that, no matter where you live, you are able to access legal support in a timely and sensitive manner. The Department of Justice is taking welcome steps to increase that access through a package of reforms, including the adjustment of mileage rates for legal aid practitioners, working with the legal profession to ensure its attractiveness to young professionals and reviewing legal aid remuneration. That work is needed across Northern Ireland. What threatens the Justice Minister's ambitious vision for the justice system, however, is a lack of funds to make it all happen. As a proportion of the block grant, the Department of Justice's allocation is now less than it was in 2011. Although this year's Budget allocation was welcome, it needs to be sustained and consistently increased over the coming years so that a real impact can be made.

Access to justice needs to be viewed as part of our social security network. I am particularly concerned about the practicalities of victims and survivors of domestic abuse being able to seek support, legal advice and representation in order to safely disengage from harmful relationships and continue to be safe after that initial breakaway. For some victims and survivors, that step would not be possible without local support in accessing an incredibly intensive string of protective orders or restraining procedures to establish child custody and residency. Travelling hours at a time for that support is costly, both in money and time.

The rurality of Fermanagh and South Tyrone deepens the intensity of the gap in access to justice provision compared with more urban areas. The lack of connectivity in the area due to the restricted availability of public transport services plays a role there, and I note the concerns that have been raised by the local MLAs about custody suites. I hope that they will get some reassurance from the PSNI on that, as I know that the Minister will not be able to speak on behalf of the PSNI. That highlights the role that other Departments and agencies have in ensuring access to justice in our society. Alliance is committed to working with everyone across the Chamber and beyond to resolve these issues. Accessing legal services and any other essential service in Northern Ireland should not be a postcode lottery.

Mr Gildernew: I thank Diana for securing this important debate and giving us an opportunity to focus on this issue. I also thank the Minister for attending the debate.

The points have all been more than well made by my colleagues. I will not rehash those other than to say that I ask the Minister to consider the cumulative knock-on effects of the withdrawal of services, which are very important You will see solicitors' offices closing. That is not just about access to a building; it is about the access to legal advice moving further and further away. Where we live is not just an inconvenient fact; that is where we pay our taxes and where we engage in business and all of that. All these things take a chip out of rural towns and villages and society more generally. I would like the debate to be considered in that regard, as well as the very important technical issues that many people have raised.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The last Member to speak is the Minister of Justice, who will respond to the debate. Minister, you have 10 minutes.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone Ms Armstrong for securing the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to engage on these issues with everyone who has remained in their place despite the hour.

I am acutely aware of the challenges facing our justice system, and my officials and I have had the opportunity to meet constituents and members of the profession from the Member's constituency to address those challenges and outline the steps that I am taking through the enabling access to justice programme. We have shaped some of our response as a result of that meeting, and some of the issues that were raised with us and surfaced during it, and I appreciate very much the Law Society giving us the opportunity to do that.

The programme is based on what I have heard and learned from those who use the system and what they tell us about their experience and what those who support it tell us about the challenges. As the Member will be aware, the reform programme aims to ensure the viability and sustainability of the justice system as a whole and, more important, to provide better services and supports to citizens. That means ensuring the continued availability of high-quality advice and representation and that we minimise the acrimony, stress and trauma for those who come into contact with the justice system by ensuring that the right supports and services are available at the right time and that disputes are resolved at the earliest possible opportunity. The programme committed to a range of actions to help to achieve those aims, including ensuring fair and proportionate remuneration for legal advice and representation; increasing eligibility for legal aid; ensuring clarity through simpler and fairer tests that focus on the greatest need and greatest risk of harm; incentivising early resolution; trialling alternative dispute resolution in the interest of ensuring better outcomes and reducing costs; and enhancing front-line service provision to ensure early access to holistic tailored support at the initial point of need. I am considering responses to the consultation on the programme delivery plan, but work is progressing in tandem with that to ensure that we can proceed and deliver effective change at pace.

The programme will, of course, be contingent on resources. Justice has consistently been underfunded, and we need to ensure that there is value for money and balance competing priorities across police, prisons and justice delivery to make sure that we can keep people safe and that resources are directed to the areas of greatest need and to supporting the most vulnerable. Through the programme, I seek to ensure that we maximise every possible benefit from every pound that we invest in legal aid and other access to justice interventions. I am keenly aware that citizens, those supporting them and colleagues in the House have evidence and insight that will help us to determine how best to achieve that. I am committed to continuing that constructive engagement. Changes must, however, be based on robust evidence, and all proposals will be subject to detailed consultation and impact assessments, including rural needs assessments, to ensure that the implications for communities and individuals are properly considered and mitigated and the benefits of the programme for citizens can be realised.

While remuneration is only one part of enabling access to justice, legal aid funding is available to ensure that people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and elsewhere who cannot afford legal services can access the representation and advice that they need. The Department recently conducted a foundational review of legal services, to which some of you referred, that indicated concerns from stakeholders about the provision of rural legal services. There is no doubt that supporting access to legal services in rural areas such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone can present challenges because of issues such as geography, public transport and the location of legal firms. Despite those issues, however, Fermanagh and Omagh have the fifth largest concentration of registered solicitor firms by local government district, with 35 solicitor firms that are based in Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area registered on the Legal Services Agency's (LSA) legal aid management system. That is a ratio of 29·9 solicitor firms per 100,000 of the population. The average distance to the nearest firm is 3·8 miles. Figures for Mid Ulster indicate that it has the fourth largest concentration of registered solicitor firms by local government area, with 36 based in that district registered on the LSA system. That is a ratio of 23·8 solicitor firms per 100,000 of the population and an average minimum distance to the nearest solicitor firm of 2·7 miles. Statistics for 2023-24 show that £2·4 million was paid to solicitor firms in Fermanagh and Omagh and £2·6 million to solicitor firms in Mid Ulster.

I want to build on that provision, and, through the enabling access to justice programme delivery plan, I seek to enhance tailored service provision at the point of entry to the system. Actions aimed at streamlining processes, improving transparency, providing targeted advice and resolving cases early outside the court environment will benefit not only those living in rural areas but solicitors and the profession.

The proximity of courts and the maintenance of the estate are important issues that Members have raised. The publication of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service's estate strategy in September 2023 was a really important milestone for the service, as it provides a framework for investment over the next decade and beyond. The estate strategy was developed through a structured engagement process with stakeholders, and one of its four aims is to improve user experience, including ensuring that our estate is inclusive and accessible for everyone. To implement the strategy, the service uses data and evidence to baseline the existing estate against the agreed strategic outcomes and to develop prioritised investment delivery plans in the context of the finite resources that we have available. The future investment in Fermanagh and South Tyrone will form part of that process, and no decision has been made on any courthouse that is part of the overall implementation of the estate strategy.

There will, of course, be difficult decisions that need to be taken with respect to all the facilities that we have. However, any proposal to reduce or change the operation of courthouses will be subject to public consultation and the scrutiny of the House.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will, yes.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for her response. I would like to check the timeline. This is concerning, and, obviously, there has been some public discourse, particularly around Enniskillen courthouse. It is essential that we do not lose that service. We have already seen it diminished in that the times of opening have been reduced. Will the Minister provide a timeline for when we might see decision-making on that?

Mrs Long: All those decisions will be dependent on resource, and the reality is that we do not know what our capital budget will be, because we are in an annual budget situation at the moment. When we move to the point where we have a three-year budgeting situation, the pace of investment that we can make in our capital infrastructure, as well as investment in resources, will be much clearer. Enniskillen courthouse is now open three days a week. It is a hearing centre, and, ultimately, the scheduling of court business is a matter for the judiciary. We facilitate them by having the hearing centre available for them.

In respect of custody suites in the region, I understand the situation in some areas where PSNI custody suites have closed and the complexity of the reasons for that. However, the management of the PSNI estate, including custody suites, is an operational matter for the Chief Constable. He is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and I cannot interfere in that decision-making. My duty is to ensure that both have adequate funding, and we had discussion at Question Time earlier about the efforts that I have made in that regard. However, I am sure that your colleague Alan Chambers, who sits on the Policing Board, will be able to raise your concerns about whether a rural needs assessment was undertaken.

Similarly, the queries that were raised regarding Land Registry delays should really be addressed to the Department of Finance within whose purview that sits. I am unable to answer in that respect.

The justice system depends on the work of hard-working, professional legal representatives across the country, and so we are bringing forward legislation to introduce a range of measures to support the viability of the legal profession, enhancing access to justice for all our citizens. We are also looking at how we can not just improve legal aid remuneration but enhance provision for the early payment of disbursements so that people will see the benefit of that. In response to conversations that we had with those who were engaged, for example, in Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) work, which is the out-of-hours work that you referred to, and some of the issues with travel, we have also reviewed hourly rates and travel disbursements for solicitors. We are looking again at PACE and at providing an uplift for unsocial hours, and we have said that we will do that. People will not take on that kind of criminal work unless they feel rewarded. Not many of us would get out of bed at 3.00 am and go somewhere for a £40 flat payment. We need to be realistic about what that work entails and how we ensure that people are adequately remunerated. That is in hand.

Responsibility for the security of the legal profession generally is not a matter for the Department alone. We have a role to play, but remuneration is only one part of the viability of the profession. For example, we can do certain things, such as the uplift to fees, and things to do with interim payments and simplification of the legal aid system, but other things really require the profession to invest. Therefore, I welcome the work that is being done by the Law Society to ensure that we have a robust profession that is not just contingent on fee arrangements but offers young people a viable career. There has to be a proactive approach to encouraging young members of the profession to practise in rural areas. We are happy to work alongside the legal profession to do that. Ultimately, it is important that it works together with the Department to ensure that people who want to enter the legal profession and to do so in their own community and in rural communities are supported and able to that. However, we have to do it within the financial constraints that my Department has to work within, as does every other Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, everyone. That was a good debate.