Official Report: Monday 22 June 2026

Mrs Mason: As the World Cup once again captures the attention of millions across the globe, many people in South Down are remembering a very different World Cup. On 18 June 1994, Ireland celebrated a famous victory over Italy. Six innocent men were murdered in the Heights Bar in Loughinisland as they watched that match. Adrian Rogan — "Frosty" — Malcolm Jenkinson, Barney Green, Dan McCreanor, Patsy O'Hare and Eamon Byrne were shot dead simply for gathering with friends and neighbours to support their national team. I was six years old at the time; the same age as some of the children who lost their fathers that evening. Like so many children across Ireland, I remember the excitement of that World Cup, but, for those children and the community of Loughinisland, that joy was stolen in an instant.

What followed the massacre was decades of obstruction, concealment and denial. The weapon used in the Loughinisland massacre did not appear out of thin air; it was linked to the 1980s loyalist arms shipment associated with Ulster Resistance, with weapons later distributed among loyalist paramilitary organisations. I remind Members that Ulster Resistance was launched publicly in 1986 with the support and participation of senior unionist figures, including leading members of the DUP of the time. The images from the Ulster Hall in November 1986 show Ian Paisley and others standing publicly at that launch. Paisley declared that he was prepared to give Ulster Resistance his undivided support. Many of those imported weapons later entered the hands of loyalist paramilitary organisations, including elements of the UDA and the UVF. One of those weapons would ultimately be used to murder six innocent men in the Heights Bar. More than 30 years later, many of the weapons remain unaccounted for, while families are still denied the full truth about how they came to be used against their loved ones.

Families are entitled to ask difficult but legitimate questions. What did senior DUP figures know about the acquisition and distribution of those weapons? What discussions took place between political figures and those involved in organising the Ulster Resistance arms importation? Given that weapons linked to an organisation publicly launched with the involvement of senior DUP figures were later connected to multiple loyalist attacks, does the DUP accept any political responsibility for the circumstances that allowed those weapons to arrive here and to be used?

From Loughinisland to Bellaghy and from the Ormeau Road to Greysteel, families have encountered the same grim reality: a pattern of collusion, concealment and protecting agents and institutions. It is a pattern of denying families the truth. The Police Ombudsman's investigation of Loughinisland laid bare that reality. Intelligence was withheld, informers were protected and evidence was destroyed. The findings were clear: collusion was a significant feature of what happened before, during and after those murders.

Thirty-two years on, families are still fighting for answers, and we stand with them. No matter how many obstacles are placed in their path, the families in Loughinisland continue to prove that truth is stronger than secrecy —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Mason: — and justice is stronger than collusion.

Mrs Dodds: Once again, I will speak in the House about puberty blockers and the nationwide trial run by King's College. I now understand that the Government will issue new guidance that will allow such a trial to go ahead. It is very concerning that the new guidance will potentially allow young girls aged 11, so still at primary school, and young boys aged 12 to participate in the trial and to access puberty blockers with parental consent. The guidance goes on to talk about other issues with puberty blockers and reasons why the trial could be stopped, such as if there are concerns about effects on bone density, the impact on brain function or vaginal bleeding.

Originally, Dr Cass talked about the science behind gender clinics as being on shaky foundations but then decided that the trial was necessary. Let me be clear: experimental treatment on children that can have lifelong implications is unconscionable. Children of 11 or 12 are in no position to give clear consent to the use of such drugs, especially when those administering the treatments had them banned because of the lack of evidence on their long-term impacts. We know that children who want to access those drugs are some of the most vulnerable children in our society. Why would we want to damage them further? Our Government are talking about a ban on social media for young people under the age of 16, and, while that may be a good thing, they are in the same breath talking about administering life-altering drugs to children of 11 or 12. The Government have surely lost their moral compass.

What does it mean for us in Northern Ireland? After an enormous amount of flip-flopping on his part, we eventually got the Minister of Health to the Chamber to say that Northern Ireland would not be part of the trial. We need reassurance from him that that position stands and that Northern Ireland's children will be protected from such experimentation.

Mr Tennyson: One of the perennial failures of the Assembly has been our inability to grapple with the issue of flags displayed on street furniture. In the past week alone, I have seen paramilitary flags erected outside a school in Banbridge, while residents of Drumnagoon, which is a mixed and shared community of new developments in Craigavon, have woken up to find their neighbourhood festooned with flags, against the wishes of local residents. I respect and acknowledge everyone's right to express their identity and their culture, but surely we can all agree that displaying criminal gangs' flags in our community is not culture, nor is masked men — nameless individuals — erecting flags overnight for an unspecified period with no consultation with local residents.

The response from statutory agencies is consistently inadequate. Despite it being an offence under article 87 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, we see no enforcement action whatever from the Department for Infrastructure. I call on the Infrastructure Minister to set out what she will do to start to tackle the issue. It is also the case that we spent £800,000 on the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report, which set out a way forward to deal with the issues, but, of course, that report languishes on the desks of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, with no action forthcoming.

Year in, year out, every MLA gets reports from families who feel intimidated when a flag goes up outside their house. Every year, we get complaints about the divisions that are stoked and the fear that is created in communities. It is long past time that all parties in the Chamber showed the leadership that is required and put in place a system of enforcement for when flags are flown on street furniture.

Dr Aiken: It must be said that £181·3 million is a lot of taxpayers' hard-earned money. It is money that is raised from local commuters, vehicle owners, farmers, local businesses, logistics companies and, above all, our constituents — those vital people whom we are elected to represent. That £181·3 million is the figure in capital expenditure that Liz Kimmins, the Sinn Féin Minister responsible for our infrastructure, sent back to the Department of Finance, because of her inability to spend money on our roads or anything else for that matter. I will say it again: £181·3 million. We know that the Department is dysfunctional. We know that her Department spends more on legal cases, fighting judicial reviews and being chastised by judges for legal ineptitude and on vesting land and ripping out hedges and fencing and then trying to unvest it and paying even more money to put back the fences and hedges that it took out. It is responsible for keeping our bloated legal and planning-consultant vultures in new holiday homes and Porsches, with apologies to vultures, Mr Speaker.

No one is accountable or responsible for the debacle. It goes without saying that Sinn Féin's Minister Liz Kimmins refuses to take accountability or responsibility. We will not be expecting her to resign over the £181·3 million farce. We can hardly blame the current permanent secretary, as she has just taken up her post, but, surely, her predecessors must bear some accountability or responsibility, especially considering the senior civil servants' salary scale of between £146,000 and £163,000, with, of course, their taxpayer-funded pension contribution of 34·2% — £218,000 a year is nice remuneration for not spending £181·3 million. It is no surprise that they will not be resigning either.

I will say it again: £181·3 million. On the basis of the highly inflated DFI costs of around £500 per pothole, that represents 362,000 potholes that the Department of ineptitude could have filled in over the past two years. Instead, that most dysfunctional Department, under the most inept Sinn Féin Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly and a series of grossly over-superannuated permanent secretaries, gave the money back. While we cry out for improved water infrastructure, the fixing of our roads, the building of the A5 and the progression of the York Street interchange project, people suffer daily on our roads, yet Liz Kimmins and her permanent secretaries gave £181·3 million back.

It is little wonder that our electorate wonder why we have such a Department when it gives back £181·3 million. We have permanent secretaries who are pocketing pay packets of £200k-plus and Sinn Féin Ministers who are not accountable or responsible for anything. I hope that, next May, there will be an accounting for those inept and completely useless Ministers and Departments.

Mr McNulty: I am honoured to speak to welcome the settlement reached in the case relating to the murders of the Reavey brothers in south Armagh in 1976. The settlement comes more than 50 years after the appalling and shocking murders of John Martin, Brian and Anthony in their home in Whitecross. Eugene Reavey not only had to cope with the loss of his brothers in the most horrendous circumstances imaginable but was subjected to repeated harassment and abuse when his brothers' memories were tarnished by false claims that they were paramilitaries.

I attended the High Court alongside the Reavey family, and I admire its dignity and determination during its long and arduous pursuit of justice. Sadie Reavey, Eugene's mother, lit a candle every night and prayed for the men who murdered her sons. Talk about strength, forbearance and generosity. The strength and bravery shown by Eugene Reavey over the past five decades has been extraordinary. He knew that his brothers were innocent, and, with a relentless determination, he never stopped fighting for truth and justice to clear their names. Eugene said that while he was being cross-examined by the defence barristers last week, he had not felt so pumped up since the 1969 county final when Whitecross defeated Ballymacnab 0-4 to 0-2.

It was humbling to stand with Eugene and his family in court when the settlement was reached, and to see them finally receive that long-overdue acknowledgement. It was a proud day for the Reavey family, a proud day for Whitecross and a proud day for south Armagh. I welcome the fulsome apology offered by Chief Constable Jon Boutcher and the acceptance of the failures of the RUC. No settlement can undo the pain suffered by the Reavey family, especially as the gun used in that case was used in 11 murders that could have been prevented had proper procedures been followed.

The acknowledgement of the truth remains an important moment for the Reavey family. It is the largest legal settlement for any legacy case. It should never have taken so long to reach this point, but as Eugene said to me as we walked out of court last Thursday, "I can feel a weight starting to lift". Well done, Eugene; well done, Roisin; and well done to the entire Reavey family. I know that it has been a massive team effort by you all. We are all so delighted for you. Good luck for what is next.

Mr Baker: Another school year is coming to an end, and, unfortunately, as has been the case time and time again, the same group of children will not have a place to allow them to start school in September. Hundreds of children with additional and complex needs are sitting at home not knowing what is going to happen next. That is a shameful indictment of the Minister's failure to prepare. The Education Authority (EA) and the Department of Education told us to judge them by this year, and, once again, hundreds of children are being left behind.

It will be those children who will be offered places that do not even exist. It will be the same children who will end up on reduced timetables that the Department and the EA have no record of: no one is even keeping tabs on them. What message is that to send to those parents? Those children will be excited and want to go to school with their peers. As they watch on, their peers will know where they are going, but they will not know where they will be. It is a cliff edge every single year. At this time last year, as Members drew to a close, heading towards recess, the Education Minister did not come to the House even though hundreds of children were being left behind. He was, in fact, in Florida, championing TransformED. Where is he today? Are we going to hear anything in the weeks ahead that will give some reassurance to parents? I very much doubt it.

It is not just the Education Minister who is failing that same group of children. It is the Health Minister, too. Post-19 children are heading for a cliff edge. The very modest ask from Caleb's cause was for the Minister to prioritise preparatory work towards legislation to support those children. That did not happen. In fact, that campaign was gaslighted. That is shameful. As we head towards summer, when families need a bit of respite, it is a postcode lottery when it comes to direct payments. In the Belfast Trust, you may have 10 or 16 hours, but if you move across into the South Eastern Trust, parents are being told that a child can have only two or four hours because the trust does not want them to get too reliant on that support. What a disingenuous message to send to parents. The condition of children with additional and complex needs is not going to change nor is the support that they need, so why are they always messed about? It is the same families who are always messed about.

Where will the leadership come from? With just two weeks left, will the Education Minister and the Health Minister come to the House to lay out their plan? I doubt that very much.

In the past number of weeks, I have seen more time in the Chamber spent arguing over something that has been vetoed. Hours upon hours spent debating something —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Baker: — that will not even happen.

Mr Buckley: While prime ministerial resignations are a much more common occurrence these days — my six-month-old daughter is now moving towards her second PM — it is important that we reflect on what has been one of the most disastrous premierships in modern times. The British people were told that, under Keir Starmer, things would only get better; instead, families found life becoming harder, businesses found it more difficult to survive and confidence in government sank even lower. His legacy will not be bold leadership or economic revival; he will be remembered for stripping winter fuel payments from pensioners, taxing small businesses to breaking point and placing the future of family farms in jeopardy or maybe for pursuing eye-watering net zero targets and spending while ordinary households struggled to pay their bills. Time and again, he claimed to stand for working families, but where was that support when those families were battling the cost of living? Where was the relief for the people choosing between heating and eating? Instead, many people looked at their electricity bills and wondered how Britain, a nation blessed with so much potential, could see some of the highest energy costs in the Western world.

And then there was immigration. The Prime Minister promised to smash the gangs and to stop the illegal crossings, yet the boats kept coming. Just last week, more than 1,600 illegal immigrants crossed the English Channel in 23 boats. The British people have been demanding action on illegal and uncontrolled immigration for years, but, like so many before him, Sir Keir simply did not listen. Is it any wonder that many give him the title "two-tier Keir" — a man more interested in the international order than his own domestic order in the United Kingdom. He applied one standard to himself and, indeed, his political allies and another to the rest of the country.

Let us not mistake today's events for victory. One Prime Minister is gone, but the ideology that produced those systemic failures remains. If Andy Burnham succeeds him, it should not be assumed that the UK is embarking on a new direction. Changing the face at the top does not change the policies underneath. It would simply be more of the same, albeit delivered in a northern accent. This country does not need a rebranding exercise; it needs fundamental reform —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — and common sense to be placed back at its heart.

Mr Honeyford: A new survey of business leaders should be a wake-up call to all in the House but particularly to the Department for the Economy and the Department for Infrastructure. The message from business that was released last week is stark and clear. Eighty-two per cent of businesses say that Stormont's current policy and lack of decision-making is constraining growth; 74% believe that economic growth is deprioritised in decision-making; just 1% of business leaders rate as "strong" the follow-up from policy announcement to real-world delivery; and 58% have delayed investment. Our biggest economic challenge is no longer lack of opportunity; it is absolutely the lack of delivery. Whatever the constitutional future that people want in this place, this region has to work. The Executive are failing to provide certainty and follow-up on their commitments. My colleague Andrew Muir having had his green growth strategy blocked for over a year is just one example.

Not every challenge is within Stormont's control — I acknowledge that — but what we can control and need to control is the creation of the platform that drives growth. Energy is a prime example, just like other areas of our economy. Investors are asking not for miracles but for certainty: a master plan, a clear policy road map and clear timelines and a stable legislative framework that gives private investors the confidence to invest in our future. That investment will not happen to its full potential without that plan and that certainty from the Department for the Economy. Two and a half years into the term of this Executive, much of that remains missing. The same applies to waste water infrastructure and planning reform, with delays continuing to block growth and investment. We should do much more to collaborate North/South, as we do east-west, to improve people's lives.

The void of delivery is becoming an economic risk in its own right. We do not lack the talent, the ambition or the opportunity. The challenge that we have is not in identifying what needs to be done; the challenge is in having a political system that is willing to make it function and make decisions. The challenge is in delivering actions at the pace that our economy and our businesses require. The gap between ambition and action is costing us in investment, jobs and growth, and that needs to change right now. Alliance will support anyone who comes forward with opportunities, but, unfortunately, we have not seen very many of those, and there is little that we can support. Our economy needs action, and it needs it now.

Mrs Dillon: At the weekend, Fleadh Thír Eoghain

was hosted by Clogher Valley Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann in Ballygawley. Over a fantastic weekend, we saw a display of musicians, storytellers and singers of all ages compete and enjoy craic agus ceol

. I congratulate all the competitors who took part and offer my best wishes to those who were successful in getting through to compete at the Ulster fleadh in Warrenpoint from 19 July to 26 July.

I mention in particular my local branch, Coalisland Clonoe Comhaltas. The talent on display does not happen in a vacuum; it is down to the hard work of many volunteers, and the individuals who put in massive effort. Comhghairdeas agus go raibh míle maith agaibh

who volunteer their time and energy and make sacrifices to teach and to support the talent and the culture. I see the same faces at my local branch every week. They know who they are. I, along with many parents, thank you. Without your volunteering spirit and support for our children, they would not have had the opportunity to play instruments, to sing and to be storytellers. You are the heart of supporting the culture to flourish. As I said, the volunteering spirit is immense and was very much on display over the weekend in Ballygawley. I thank all who put in the effort and worked really hard over the past year to ensure that the event was successful. I thank the volunteers, the community and the businesses of Ballygawley that supported the event.

I wish everybody all the very best in Fleadh Uladh

and in the first Fleadh Cheoil na hEireann

to be hosted in Belfast. I sincerely hope that we will see members of Coalisland Clonoe Comhaltas represented at the fleadh in Belfast in August. Maith sibh.

Mr Bradley: I record my appreciation to everyone who contributed to the tremendous success of Armed Forces Day 2026 in Coleraine. On Saturday, thousands gathered in the town to recognise and celebrate the contribution made by serving personnel, veterans, reservists, cadets and military families. The event demonstrated the strong bond that exists between our armed forces and the communities that they serve.

The day began with a drumhead service and a wreath-laying ceremony at the war memorial, providing a fitting opportunity to remember those who made the supreme sacrifice and to reflect on the dedication and service of all who have worn the uniform of our nation. The Armed Forces Day parade, led by the Royal Irish Regiment, received a warm welcome through the streets of Coleraine from the spectators who lined both sides. Throughout the afternoon, families and visitors enjoyed military displays, exhibitions, live entertainment and community activities, creating a positive and inclusive atmosphere for people of all ages. Among the highlights were the impressive RAF Falcons parachute display, the ceremonial gun salute by 206 (Ulster) Battery Royal Artillery and the fly-past by the Battle of Britain memorial flight Dakota aircraft. All served as a powerful reminder of the courage and sacrifice of previous generations.

I was pleased to join fellow elected representatives at the celebrations, especially my colleagues the deputy First Minister and the party leader, Gavin Robinson, as well, of course, as veterans, serving personnel and members of the public. It was particularly encouraging to see so many young people engaging with the event and learning more about the role and history of our armed forces. I commend Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, the 38 (Irish) Brigade, the Royal Irish Regiment, veterans' organisations, volunteers, performers, the emergency services and all those whose hard work ensured the success of the day.

Armed Forces Day provides an important opportunity to recognise the professionalism, commitment and sacrifice of those who serve. Coleraine demonstrated, once again, its pride in our armed forces, and the community demonstrated its gratitude for all that they do. I place on record my sincere thanks to all serving personnel, veterans, reservists, cadets and military families. Their service deserves our recognition and appreciation not only on Armed Forces Day but throughout the year.

Mr Durkan: Yesterday marked Global Motor Neurone Disease Awareness Day, which presents an important opportunity to raise awareness of a condition that is devastating and, as yet, incurable. MND is a fatal and rapidly progressing neurological disease that gradually robs people of the ability to walk, use their hands, speak, swallow and breathe. While the body fails, the mind often remains unaffected. It is difficult to imagine the courage that is required to face such a horrific diagnosis or the resilience that is shown by those who live with the condition and the families who care for them every day. Around 120 people here currently live with MND, and that number is expected to rise to around 200 within the next decade. Of course, they are not just numbers; they are our loved ones, our colleagues, our neighbours and our friends.

Across the UK, a third of those who are diagnosed with MND die within a year, and more than half die within two years. Sadly, the outcomes are worse here. Delays in diagnosis mean that people lose precious time that could have been spent accessing specialist care, planning for the future and making the most of the little time that they have left. Although there is currently no cure for MND, timely diagnosis, coordinated care and appropriate support can make a profound difference to the quality of life of patients and their families.

Recently, some of us in the Chamber had the privilege of welcoming to Parliament Buildings people who are living with MND, at an event that was hosted by the Motor Neurone Disease Association. That was a deeply moving, informative and, indeed, inspirational event. We heard at first hand about the realities of living with the cruel disease but also about the determination, dignity and courage shown by those affected. Those voices deserve to be heard, and not just on awareness days. I call on the Executive to do better for people living with MND and the families that support them. That means ensuring timely diagnosis, strengthening specialist services, supporting research and delivering the practical care and assistance that the patients and carers so desperately need. For those who are living with MND, time is the one thing that they simply do not have. We owe it to them to act with urgency, compassion and determination.

Mr Speaker: The RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill has received Royal Assent. The RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 17 June 2026, and it is chapter 5.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I begin with an unconditional apology for the evil that was perpetrated in Muckamore Abbey Hospital, as confirmed by the inquiry report, which was published last week, on 18 June.

I thank the leader of the Opposition. Today is Opposition day, and, when I asked him whether he would make way for the statement, he agreed without hesitation. Thank you, Mr O'Toole. I believe that that is the definition of a responsible Opposition.

I invite Members to reflect on the words "Muckamore Abbey Hospital": "Muckamore", a location; "Abbey", a place of Christian values and practice and a sanctuary for visitors; and "Hospital", a place for care and compassion. The words "Muckamore Abbey Hospital" therefore suggest the perfect home for the vulnerable, but, for far too many, for far too long, it was anything but. That is a true scandal, and, for that, I offer an abject apology from me and on behalf of the entire health and social care (HSC) system. That apology means little on its own, and the 106 recommendations in the inquiry's report are a testament to that. I thank the inquiry chair, Tom Kark KC, and his colleagues for the report and for the care and diligence that they took in conducting their inquiry. The amount of evidential material provided was considerable, as was and the number of witnesses who spoke to the inquiry, and I thank all who helped uncover the scandal.

As I said in my initial response on Thursday, the report must be a watershed moment for the treatment and care of the most vulnerable in our society. Anything less is unacceptable. It is unforgivable to let down those who rightly expected the health system to look after their loved ones. They placed their trust in the system to keep their loved ones safe and to provide them with the care and compassion that they needed. Again, I can only say sorry.

What happened has been devastating. It has devastated trust, devastated confidence in healthcare and, above all, devastated lives. I am struck by the report's identifying families as feeling guilty when they saw the devastating CCTV footage. They felt guilty because they felt that they had failed their loved ones. I say this to those families: your emotions are natural, because you are decent, caring human beings, but it was not your fault. Rather, it was the fault of healthcare professionals who did not share your caring, loving values. You were let down, and you were failed. You were then not believed — not believed — when you sounded the alarm.

Mr Speaker, we should all be human. If it were you or one of your loved ones in Muckamore, how would you want to be treated? Humanely, I suggest. That it has taken a public inquiry to get to the bottom of issues that were raised over a number of years, when they could and should have been addressed at the time, is so, so wrong. For that, I am truly sorry. I am sorry that families had to fight so hard and for so long to have their concerns taken seriously. I am sorry that they had to relive painful experiences so openly and in public in order to make the system understand. I am sorry that the services that they should have been able to trust, without a moment's hesitation or second thought, so badly let them down.

I pay tribute to the bravery and perseverance of all the families who have made sure that their loved ones have had their voice heard, starting when the initial allegations of abuse were raised in August 2017 and continuing through the work of the inquiry to the current day. I do not underestimate the toll that that has taken on you and the personal cost incurred from your being required to relive experiences so publicly through your engagement with the inquiry. I can only hope that the publication of the final report, with its 106 recommendations, in some way vindicates your efforts and determination.

I also acknowledge the health and social care staff, past and present, who engaged positively with the inquiry. It has not been without cost to them, and, in some cases, a very considerable cost, but their engagement was vital. I also thank those from outside our health system who assisted the inquiry with its work. Many findings, conclusions and comments in the report made for uncomfortable reading. One such suggestion was that the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust did not consider that evidence from families and patients should have been given equal weight to its own records. Equally, I was concerned to read in the report:

That is not what I would have expected, or wanted, to be the position that the trust adopted.

Given the trust's central role, I can inform Members that I am already scheduled to meet trust representatives later this afternoon. I expect them not only to provide an initial assessment of the report but to account specifically for the inquiry's stinging criticism of the trust's approach to the inquiry.

On Thursday, I reacted to recommendation 2 of the report, which allows the Department of Health up to six months to make public whether it accepts the report's recommendations or explain why it does not. I want to do much better than that because we owe it to those who suffered, their families and friends and to the future of public confidence in the delivery of health and social care. I have observed significant cynicism suggesting that lip service will be given to the 106 recommendations in the report and that the report will be left to gather dust on the shelf: that is not my style. I am determined that it will not be an open-ended process, and I give Members my commitment that my Department will move swiftly to respond to the recommendations, starting with accepting No 106. I shall set up a small consultative working group to discuss redress once I have met some of the families, which I shall do as soon as we agree dates.

We have started work on the recommendations, and we shall continue at pace. Some have financial implications and will need detailed consideration. Our considerations will include identifying interfaces or alignment between the inquiry's recommendations and other work already being progressed by my Department. For example, work is progressing on the introduction of a duty of candour. At its core, the work is focused on strengthening a culture of openness and honesty, and work is being taken forward on two separate pieces of legislation. The first is on an organisational duty of candour for Northern Ireland that will place a legal duty on the HSC to be open and honest in defined circumstances where harm has occurred. Secondly, we are participating in the UK-wide Public Office (Accountability) Bill or Hillsborough law, which will place individual statutory duties on all public officials, including those in the HSC, to act in the public interest. Work is also under way in other areas, such as the implementation of the new learning disability service model, which will provide a lifetime model of responsive services for those with learning disabilities. Work is also ongoing to implement the recommendations set out in the ‘Equity of Access and Outcome’ report, which examined the future role of registered nurses in learning disability in supporting people with learning disabilities.

Let me re-emphasise: the safeguarding of those who are most vulnerable in our society is a key focus. That has been demonstrated by the adult safeguarding Bill that is progressing through the Assembly. Members will be aware that the Bill's progress was paused earlier in the year to enable the findings from the inquiry to be published and considered in conjunction with the Bill. The work will now restart. I commit to Members that the Department will consider the implications of the inquiry's recommendations on the proposals in the Bill and will ensure that any necessary adjustments are made without delay.

Finally, while the inquiry's report helps us understand the failings of the past and provides a road map for the work needed to address those issues, it is vital that we now move forward as a health and social care system and, importantly, as a society into a safer, more inclusive and accepting future for those who are most vulnerable. To that end, I am convening a summit at the end of June that will bring together Health and Social Care leaders, including trust chairs and chief executives, as well as the chairs of the newly established patient safety and quality committees. At the summit, I will set out my vision and expectations for our collective responsibility as an HSC system to strengthen patient safety, culture, governance and accountability.

I shall bring Members further details and updates on progress against the recommendations as my Department and the wider HSC system work through the report. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr McGrath: The past week has reopened wounds for many families that should never have been inflicted in the first place. The inquiry has exposed one of the gravest adult safeguarding failures that we have seen, but it has also exposed a system that repeatedly failed to listen to families. One of the most disturbing findings from the inquiry is that the families were not believed. Across our health service today there are campaign groups, whistle-blowers and families raising concerns who feel they are meeting the same culture of defensiveness and resistance. What evidence can you point to that the system has genuinely changed? Why should those people be confident that they will not have to endure the battle that the Muckamore families faced?

Mr Nesbitt: I very much agree with a lot of the sentiment that the Member has expressed. It should not have happened. I think that we all agree that families should have been listened to. I also think that we all agree that the Department of Health, the Belfast Trust or any other trust, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), the Patient and Client Council (PCC) and any of the bodies delivering across the Health and Social Care system exist for the benefit of patients, service users and our society.

I am particularly disturbed to read the stinging criticism from the chair about the adversarial nature of the Belfast Trust's response. To my mind, it is acceptable to protect the integrity and reputation of an organisation when it is under unfair attack — unfair attack. However, there was nothing to defend about Muckamore: it was evil. Evil was perpetrated by healthcare workers who were there to look after the people whom they were attacking.

There is a big deal of work to be done in trying to restore public confidence, and I get that. I am also conscious that we are talking about a system that has 75,000 or 76,000 people in it, so we face a massive challenge to make sure that not one of them ever does anything that they should not do.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): Minister, the inquiry found systematic abuse, neglect and serious governance failure at Muckamore Abbey Hospital over many years — failures that were not isolated incidents but reflected systematic issues across leadership, staffing, safeguarding and oversight that resulted in decades of physical and psychological abuse. You have given an abject apology on behalf of the entire health system today: that apology is absolutely necessary, but it is not sufficient. Families now expect three things: accountability for those responsible; full implementation of the inquiry's recommendations; and clear evidence that vulnerable people in our health system are safer today than they were yesterday. Can you tell us that those three asks will be met for those families?

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member that those are the right asks, and I will work tirelessly to try to implement them. I was struck by how Mr Kark makes a conclusion that the trust was about the business of assurance rather than reassurance. In other words, at board level, they were asking the question, "Is there are a process in place?", but, when they were told, "Yes, there is", they effectively moved on to the next agenda item rather than saying, "What is that process delivering? What outcomes are we getting? Is it working to protect people?". There was a lack of curiosity, frankly, and Mr Kark refers to a lack of curiosity in the report.

When it comes to how we want to do things differently, we will listen to what the report says, and, rather than review abuse on a case-by-case basis, we will look for trends to see whether the issue is systemic and, if it is, do something about it. I have mentioned the two things that we are doing: the patient safety and quality committees that are being set up in each of the trusts; and the adult safeguarding Bill that is going through the House. We will learn lessons and adjust the Bill accordingly.

All I can say to the Member is that I promise a renewed and more laser-like focus on abuse, not just on a case-by-case basis but on how it is being perpetrated on a systematic basis. I hope that that has stopped, but we cannot rely on hope. We have to have systems and structures in place to make sure that we nip it in the bud.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. The Muckamore inquiry report demonstrates a shameful period for our health service, and no one involved can, in any shape or form, come out of this with any kind of credibility. In your statement this morning, we have an apology, but it lacks detail about the specific actions that you will take to ensure that there is accountability. One senior member representing the autistic community said that your statement was an absolute slap in the face to the many autistic people who had been subjected to immense harm.

Minister, how will you ensure accountability not just for past wrongs, including the criminal charges, which, of course, are a separate issue, but for the managers who turned their back, did not look and did not want to find out what was happening in Muckamore hospital? How will you give accountability for the future to ensure that it never happens again?

Mr Nesbitt: I am unaware of the statement and very much regret that it has not landed well with the people — the group — to whom the Member refers.

When it comes to ensuring that it never happens again, I think that Mr Kark has tried to give us the road map with those 106 recommendations. We will not take six months to decide whether we implement them. Over the weekend, I went through those recommendations, and I have now categorised them across three columns. There are some — in fact, around 66 — that we can action very quickly. There are others where I feel that I need to consult officials to better understand the implications should we go ahead with implementation. Then there are ones that will need exploring because they will require resource and funding. That is not an impediment; it is simply a challenge. Of course, there are a couple that I cannot commit to implementing: recommendation 88 is for the PSNI and recommendation 89 is for the Department of Justice. Another one, recommendation 101, will involve the Housing Executive and the Department for Communities. That leaves 103 recommendations for the Health and Social Care system. We will press ahead, as a matter of urgency, with an open mind and a positive attitude towards implementation. That is how I intend to try to give the assurance that the Member seeks.

Miss McAllister: Minister, thank you for coming here and making the statement. However, if you will allow me, Mr Speaker: many of the families of children and patients who were in Muckamore Abbey Hospital are sitting in the Gallery. In particular, I pay significant tribute to Glynn Brown, who was instrumental in uncovering a lot of the abuse that happened there. We also pay tribute to Timmy Jones, the son of our Alliance colleague, Mervyn Jones, and Dawn Jones. Many families have worked hard over the years to uncover abuse and speak up for many people who do not have a voice.

The inquiry report raises serious questions about leadership and governance in the Belfast Trust during the period, a period when the hyponatraemia inquiry was ongoing. Members of that trust leadership now hold substantial roles in your Department and other trusts.

Mr Speaker: Miss McAllister, please come to a question.

Miss McAllister: How will you ensure that there is proper accountability for senior figures who have moved around trusts and into your Department who were involved not only in this issue but in the issues relating to the hyponatraemia inquiry?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for pointing out that there are families in the Gallery: I was unaware of that. I have said that I want to meet them, hopefully this week. If they have time after the session, I would like to come up, say hello and start that conversation.

Yes, there are people working in HSC who lived through the scandal. When it comes to the Belfast Trust, I will repeat that I have a meeting scheduled with the chair and the chief exec later today. That will be the start of trying to come to a determination about whether the trust that I have put in them remains as solid as I have said it is and whether that is a valid position to take.

Mr Chambers: Does the Minister agree that the actions of the heartless and cruel bullies who worked in Muckamore and those who chose to turn a blind eye, as the report identifies, are not, in any shape or form, representative of the many thousands of staff in our Health and Social Care system who provide compassionate and dedicated care daily to the vulnerable, the young, the elderly, the ill and the dying, who all depend on our Health and Social Care system?

Mr Nesbitt: Clearly, the primary harm that that evil has done has been on the patients at Muckamore, their families and their friends. That, rightly, is our primary focus today. However, the Member makes a valid point about the ripples of uncertainty and, potentially, fear, particularly for vulnerable people and their families in the community. Those ripples are out there, and one of the things that that does is undermine trust. Some 75,000 or 76,000 people, I believe, deliver health and social care in this country. The vast majority are entirely trustworthy and are to be commended for what they do. I reassure them that I am with them and do not consider them to be in the same category as the number who perpetrated the evil of Muckamore or, indeed, those who should have identified that evil early and stopped it early.

Mrs Dillon: With your indulgence, a Cheann Comhairle,

I use the opportunity to pay tribute to Geraldine O'Hagan, who was one of the staff members to whom the Minister refers in his statement who paid a high price. In June 2024, Geraldine passed away. However, she survived to hear her statement read at the inquiry. At that time, she was under hospice care for stage 4 cancer. She was the epitome of what healthcare should look like. She cared deeply, and, for that, she was gaslighted and disbelieved, and she and her job were threatened. After news of the Muckamore scandal came out, Geraldine continued to support families, trying to help them to get their loved ones into better independent living circumstances.

Will you give us assurances, Minister, about staff who do their job and speak up? You talked about the many staff members who are overwhelmingly good, yet they did not speak up. The people who were not doing it did not speak up —

Mr Speaker: The question?

Mrs Dillon: — they did not shout; and they did not support the families.

Mr Speaker: Do you have a question, Mrs Dillon?

Mrs Dillon: What assurance can you give us that those who see abuse, neglect and harmful practices will be listened to and protected? Do you agree that now is the time for legislation on an individual duty of candour? We need to see that now. People need to face consequences when they do not act.

Mr Nesbitt: Anybody working in Health and Social Care from me down through the trust boards and down to individuals delivering care in the community and in hospital settings needs to be curious; needs to feel empowered to speak up; and needs to speak up. What happened in Muckamore was that people walked on by. People sat and observed. I am a bit cautious about using emotional language, but, frankly, healthcare workers turned abuse into a spectator sport.

A Member: Shameful.

Mr Nesbitt: It was shameful, so we have to do everything humanly possible to make sure that it never happens again.

There are 106 recommendations. I will not go through them all, but I will take the first and the last. Recommendation 106 is about a small working group to discuss redress. That includes patients, families and service users: I will absolutely do that. Recommendation 1 is:

Yes, that will happen. I will do everything that I can to make sure that the right voices are heard in the right places at the right time.

Mr Robinson: Forgive me, Minister, for also using emotional language, but reading about some of the cruelty towards those incredibly vulnerable people is like reading about what happened in a Nazi concentration camp, except that it was not a concentration camp; it was a First World healthcare facility where people should have been safe and free from such cruelty. How will the proposed adult safeguarding Bill address the weaknesses highlighted in the report, given that we have been told that there is not enough money to implement the Bill fully?

Mr Nesbitt: First of all, we will need time to assess not just the recommendations in their own right but how they will interact with the adult safeguarding Bill. I cannot give you definitive answers to that now. We will need more time than we have had since the publication of the report on 18 June.

The Member also mentioned funding. In my mind, I have divided the 106 recommendations into three categories, one of which is consideration for the funding, but he is talking about funding for the implementation of the Adult Protection Bill. It may be that the publication of the report and the focus on the evil that was perpetrated at Muckamore will ease the purse strings when it comes to how we allocate budget to the Adult Protection Bill as we implement it as an Act.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, as you mentioned in your statement, the inquiry was highly critical of what it describes as "an adversarial and oppositional approach" by the Belfast Trust to the inquiry. Does the Minister accept that that points to a deeper cultural problem in parts of the organisation, where challenge and scrutiny are resisted rather than embraced? What specific actions will he, as Health Minister, take to change that culture? Furthermore, can the Minister confirm whether the Belfast Trust remains in special measures?

Mr Nesbitt: On the latter point, we are talking about the support and intervention framework, which is commonly known as "special measures". I put the Belfast Trust into level 5, which is the highest level. I have brought the trust out of that, because I felt that we were getting somewhere with the leadership. As I have said on a couple of occasions, I am meeting the leadership — the chief executive and the chair — today. I do not rule anything out around further interventions, because it is incredibly serious.

I was quite surprised to read in the report that, after the warning letters went out, there was a response from the trust that ran to well over 400 pages. On reflection, it is a very detailed and complex issue, and we, as a Department, have responded to some queries from the inquiry with a great deal of volume. My focus is not really on the volume but on the tone and attitude and the fact that Mr Kark said that it was adversarial. A public inquiry is not an adversarial platform. I need to better understand why he came to that conclusion and why the trust felt that need. In my view of life, if you get it wrong, put your hand up and fix it; do not try to justify it. We all know that the cover-up is always worse than what happened in the first place.

Ms Flynn: I join you, Minister, and Nuala in welcoming the families who are in the Public Gallery. If we feel horrified when reading the report, how do they feel, given that they have been living through that experience with their loved ones?

Minister, I am working with members of one of the families, and, after everything that they have endured, they remain anxious about whether their loved one is safe and receiving appropriate care and whether she will ever be placed in the appropriate secure accommodation that she requires. That family, like many others, feels that its battle has not ended with the inquiry report, as the families are still fighting for appropriate services and living arrangements for their loved ones. What assurances can you give to those families, who have already been terribly impacted on, that their concerns will be listened to and their loved ones will be placed in the appropriate accommodation that they deserve?

Mr Nesbitt: On the second point, I understand that all but one of the patients have now been allocated a new set of living circumstances. I am also assured that one reason for it having taken longer than it was first anticipated to close Muckamore Abbey Hospital is that such considerable care has been taken in trying to meet the patients' individual needs. I certainly want to test that when I engage with the families.

The Member mentioned how impactful the report is to read for families, never mind us. Again, one question that I want to ask the families is this: in reading the report, were they shocked, or were they just affirmed by seeing what they knew all along in black and white in a report by an official body, such as a public inquiry? Does that justify and affirm what they have been saying all along, particularly given the fact that they started from a position where the authorities said, "We do not believe you"? Scandalous.

Mr Clarke: Following on from Mrs Dodds's comments, given the seriousness of the Muckamore inquiry, the lack of detail in the Minister's statement on the actions that he is going to take is stark and disappointing. In a couple of his responses, he reminded Members of some of the wrongdoing that occurred. All of us will say that what some staff did to some patients was deplorable. I received an email over the weekend from one of the families affected that said that it had been a difficult fight for them, because they felt as though they had not been believed. Some of us who made representations found management to be obstructive and difficult to work with when we raised concerns. Can we hear clearly from the Minister what action he is going to take to address the lack of action on the part of the management that was in place at the time? It is easy to go after those who are in front of the courts, because the courts will decide what is going to happen to them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Please conclude your question.

Mr Clarke: What, however, is the Minister going to do about the actions of those who obstructively covered up what went on and made the families feel as though they were not believed when they raised their concerns?

Mr Nesbitt: That very issue is a focus for me, and it begins later today when I will meet the chair and the chief executive of the Belfast Trust. I am not interested in letting anybody off the hook. I am absolutely convinced about the guilt here and about the evil that was perpetrated. It was not simply about nurses wandering around the hospital site but about oversight. I have said it before that the board was not curious enough. It was satisfied when it was told that a process was in place. It should, however, have gone on to say, "Yes, but what is it achieving?".

How many instances were there of peer-on-peer abuse? How many instances were there of abuse by patients against staff and vice versa? All those things need to be analysed. Why were they not analysed? What was the motivation behind management's not analysing them? I want to know all those things, and then I will come to conclusions.

Mr Kelly: I thank the Minister for his statement. Accountability and implementation have been mentioned a number of times. The test in all of this will be the speed of implementation. I declare an interest, in that my sister Peggy, who was next in the family to me, spent time in Muckamore many years ago. I mention that because, even then, before there was any ability to gather evidence, there was the misuse of vulnerable people. The secrecy and privacy of institutions that deal with vulnerable people is the worst thing that we need to look at.

Like others, I have worked with a number of families. One particular family is that of Matthew McPeake. Linda Dillon mentioned Geraldine O'Hagan, who was a family liaison social worker who supported and advocated for the McPeake family. I spent some considerable time with Geraldine, a totally dedicated and courageous woman who, as Linda pointed out, died of cancer. It is worth saying that I went to see her in the hospital to ask her —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): May we have a question?

Mr Kelly: I will finish in one second. When I asked her how she was doing, she said that she wanted me to go and help others. That is what she spent our time together talking about.

We are talking not just about closing Muckamore but about resettling people. I was there during the resettlement period, and there were problems after resettlement as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We need a question, Mr Kelly.

Mr Kelly: My question is this: will the Minister make sure that, going forward, family liaison staff are supported as crucial members of the teams that take care of our most vulnerable people? They are the people who should have been listened to, but they were not.

Mr Nesbitt: I am sad to hear about the Member's experience. In summary, those patients are vulnerable. Some have families who were more than capable of advocating on their behalf, but patients who do not should have advocates and key workers. They should have people who know them, understand them and care for them on every step of their journey.

Mr Frew: My question is simple. The Minister has said today that he is sorry. He has read words from a page and said that he is listening to the Muckamore families. If he was truly listening to the Muckamore families, he would push back against the members of his Department who do not want him to change his legislation from a corporate duty of candour Bill to that of an individual duty of candour, which is the wish not only of the Muckamore families but of the hyponatraemia families. Will the Minister change his Bill from organisational duty of candour to individual duty of candour? If he fails to do so, I will bring forward a Bill in early autumn.

Mr Nesbitt: As I have said, we will not only advance the Adult Protection Bill but introduce an organisational duty of candour Bill. Alongside that, we will support the UK-wide Public Office (Accountability) Bill, commonly known as the Hillsborough law, which includes individual duties on every person working in the health and social care system. That is a valid position. The Member takes a different but equally valid position. That is fine; I understand. When the Bill on the duty of candour comes to the House, the Member will try to amend it or, indeed, will bring forward his own Bill. That is perfectly within his political rights.

Mrs Guy: Minister, the Muckamore scandal had an impact on some of our most vulnerable adults who had conditions such as autism and learning disabilities. Many were unable to speak up for themselves and therefore relied on others to do so. It is important that you refer to conditions such as autism, which are referenced clearly in the report but were mentioned not once in your statement. Unfortunately, we know of other instances of vulnerable communities being failed by our health service. The most obvious example that comes to my mind is the children's respite and short breaks service. What are you doing specifically to ensure that the failures seen in Muckamore, such as a substandard level of care, lack of governance and families' concerns simply being ignored, are not repeated elsewhere in the system?

Mr Nesbitt: In the report, Mr Kark and his colleagues do not make recommendations specific to the Belfast Trust, which owned and ran the Muckamore Abbey Hospital. Rather, of the 106 recommendations in the report, 63 — way over half — are for the health and social care trusts, plural. That gives some indication of where Mr Kark thinks we should go to ensure that it never happens again. On my initial reading, I am pretty much on the same page as he is.

Mr Gildernew: I acknowledge the families who are here, many of whom I was proud to stand alongside and campaign with throughout the scandal, including in the fight that they had just to have the public inquiry held. That needs to be acknowledged.

Minister, the inquiry has been highly critical of the Belfast Trust's approach, raising concerns about its attitude towards families and its approach to the inquiry, which has caused families further hurt. You said that you will meet the trust this afternoon: if you are not satisfied with its response, are you prepared to impose independent oversight or take further action to restore public confidence?

Mr Nesbitt: I am absolutely prepared to take further action to restore public confidence, if I feel that that step is necessary. The Member will know that, with regard to the Belfast Trust, I have previously taken what could be regarded as decisive steps. I am not afraid to do so again, if I deem that necessary.

Mr Buckley: Minister, the administration of health and social care is probably the most pivotal and priority issue in devolved competence. I am sure that, like me, many Members and, indeed, the general public are increasingly concerned at the growing number of damning inquiry outcomes, investigations and reports, the potential need for redress and the fact that some in senior leadership seem to go through a revolving door in different parts of the Department. When it comes to action, where is the implementation of the new learning disability service model at present? We have often heard about that, but we have had no sight of the detail. Is the Minister prepared to release it in draft form?

Mr Nesbitt: I take the Member's point about a revolving door. However, we are bringing in fresh ideas and fresh faces, such as Steve Spoerry, the chief executive of the Southern Trust, and Mike Farrar, the permanent secretary in the Department of Health.

The different ideas that they have brought in have been more than welcome.

We are analysing the responses received during the public consultation on the learning disability service model. We need to ensure that the lessons arising from the inquiry help to shape the future direction of the learning disability service model. We need to provide a long-term framework for the transformation and improvement of adult learning disability services. The Member will not be surprised to hear that implementation will be phased and prioritised over a number of years. Once we have finalised the model, we need a detailed costing exercise to be undertaken, as well as a strategic delivery plan. I am not committing to publishing anything at this stage, but we will follow the process, and I will encourage the relevant officials to do so at pace.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister. I associate myself with the comments made by my colleague Nuala McAllister about Glynn Brown. I have also been thinking quite a lot about Timothy, Mervyn and Timothy's mum, Dawn.

Minister, the scandal is yet another example of families being failed when they raise concerns about standards of care. The drawn-out process for investigations of serious adverse incidents results in patients and families waiting far too long for accountability and the necessary improvements in their care, and, all the while, other incidents could be happening. What will you do to ensure that trusts complete that process faster whilst ensuring that patients and families are brought along and retain confidence in the process throughout? Additionally, will you examine whether the resettlement scheme has worked? I know that, for some, it has not.

Mr Nesbitt: On that last point, officials have assured me that exceptional care and a lot of time are taken to try to meet the individual needs of patients when they are being resettled, but I look forward to starting the conversations on the other side, as it were, by talking to families immediately after this session.

I referred in my statement to a health summit. I inform Members that there is one more public inquiry report to come: I believe that Christine Smith KC will publish her report on urology on Wednesday. I expect that that will also be a blow to the Health and Social Care system. That is the last of the current series of public inquiries, so that will be an appropriate time at which to call that health summit, where we will have the leadership across HSC in one room and I will have the opportunity to say to them, "Enough's enough. The line is drawn. Be human. Deliver care compassionately. Stop the scandals. Do your job".

Mr O'Toole: Minister, thank you for the statement. Although some of them have left the Chamber, I, too, welcome the families and those affected here today. We can but imagine the trauma that they and their loved ones went through at Muckamore. You, Minister, rightly called it "evil". You also said that you hoped that the abuse had stopped, but there is significant concern, as Sian Mulholland and others have mentioned, that the subsequent resettlement of patients or care users has been inappropriate and, indeed, has led to abuse. Someone from my constituency whose son was at Muckamore and had two subsequent failed placements, which led to reviews, raised with me their serious concerns about replacement. Will you meet that family and those families to discuss those ongoing concerns and their wider questions about accountability in the Belfast Trust? We welcome the fact that you are here today and have issued such strong language about accountability, but rebuilding trust and digging even further into what went wrong will be an ongoing process.

Mr Nesbitt: Having thanked the leader of the Opposition for making this possible, I now wonder for how long he has sat on that information, rather than bringing it to me. However, we will have that conversation.

I will assure myself as best I can about the quality of resettlement and, more broadly, about whether abuse is happening. I have to ask, when you think about 75,000-plus people delivering health and social care daily, is it possible that physical, psychological or mental abuse, not on the scale of Muckamore Abbey, is happening? Human nature dictates that that is highly possible, so we have to keep working and working at the system and at the culture. It is not about structures. As Rafael Bengoa said, it is about systems, not structures. It is about the systems and the culture that is embedded in people who deliver health and social care. Am I concerned that an isolated incident of abuse could be happening as we speak? Of course I am. Can you guarantee that it will never happen? No, you cannot. Can you pledge to do everything that you can to prevent it and to stop it when it happens? Yes.

Mr Carroll: I pay tribute to all of the families who have spoken out about Muckamore and the abuse, especially my constituents and Alicia Fox, Laura Sharp and their families. The Minister mentioned the trust. Does he have any concerns about the approach of its legal team? My understanding is that, at best, it has been obstructive towards the families and that it has probably been worse than that. It is often said that a fish rots from the head, and I believe that the rot in Muckamore started with the leadership at the Belfast Trust and at Department level. As was touched on, there is huge concern, Minister, about accountability at senior levels of the health service. People at the heart of the health service and the Department from the time of the events of the Muckamore inquiry have been rewarded with well-paid jobs and, in some cases, royal titles. Does he have any concern about that, and, if he does, what action will he take?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not across the last point that the Member has made. Am I concerned about the trust taking an overly legalistic approach to it? Of course I am, because that is what Mr Kark reports in the inquiry report: that it was adversarial. Again, it is not about the volume of response, which is probably justifiable, but about the tone and the attitude. Did the trust make a decision that it had to protect the trust's reputation above safety and concern for the patients? That is unacceptable. I have seen it happen before in organisations where things go wrong and abuse takes place, and the first thing that the leadership does is say, "Let's form the wagons in a circle and let's not do anything about it". In fact, in one organisation that I was part of, I was made aware of historical abuse, and I phoned the father and introduced myself and asked how his son was. There was a long pause at the other end of the phone. I heard something that I thought was sobbing, and it was. The man, when he got himself together, said, "You are the first person in 10 years from that organisation to enquire about my son". If that is the sort of attitude that anybody in Health and Social Care is going to take, it is just not acceptable. I will not ignore it, I will not sit on it and I will be decisive.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, I was contacted on Friday by a lady whose brother was in Muckamore — a lady who did not tell her story. Now the report has come out and sparked a degree of need for her to speak. I use the word "need", but that is maybe not the best word. What can that lady do now? What is her avenue at this stage to speak, and to whom should she speak?

Mr Nesbitt: I would like to think that the Department will discuss with the trust and any other relevant organisation, including the Patient and Client Council, which, of course, is there for such circumstances, and we can put in place some protocol for anybody who feels that they regret that they did not take the opportunity or did not have the opportunity to engage with the inquiry. When abuse occurs, it is always important that people are acknowledged and have the opportunity not just to tell their story but to have their story listened to and acknowledged by the right people. If the Member's constituent is looking for an immediate fix as far as being heard is concerned, I suggest that she contact the Patient and Client Council today.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the unreserved apology for the appalling abuse at Muckamore and the acknowledgement of the profound systemic failures in care, oversight and trust. Given the commitment to act swiftly, will the Minister provide a clear and detailed timeline for when the key recommendations, particularly those relating to redress, safeguarding reforms and accountability measures, will be fully implemented?

Mr Nesbitt: It is not possible — I am surprised that the Member thinks that it is — to give a defined timeline for all 106 recommendations. Some are not even within my gift. Recommendation 88 is for the Police Service of Northern Ireland; recommendation 89 is for the Department of Justice; and recommendation 101 involves the Housing Executive and the Department for Communities. As I said, I have put the recommendations into three categories. I believe that the great majority are, basically, actionable immediately, and there are some whose resource implications I do not sufficiently understand. There are 27 that I want to explore with officials — I will do that at pace — and there are at least 11 that need exploration because of the funding and resource implications.

Once again, Mr Kark's recommendation 2 gives me up to six months to respond. My Department and I and everybody in HSC will not take until Christmas to respond to the recommendations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes questions on the statement.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the record, as the Minister asked about it, I received the correspondence last evening, so it would not have been possible to have brought it to him. For the record, again, the word "harm" was used by the individual about what her family member had experienced, not "abuse". I welcome the fact that the Minister has engaged and wants to hear more about those experiences. I wanted to clarify that point on the record.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The point is on the record. Members, in recent days, advice on the relevance and accuracy of points of order has been issued.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the Speaker has made rulings on respect for the House in relation to debates in the House. The leader of the Opposition has complained previously to the Speaker about interventions that I have made in the media prior to debates. The leader of the Opposition has been in the media over the past 24 to 48 hours regarding the motion, speaking about it and engaging in detail on it, but I as Finance Minister cannot enter that debate, given the rulings of the Speaker. Will the Speaker's Office examine how appropriate it is for the leader of the Opposition to act in that way?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes, of course. The appropriate advice will be issued to you by the Speaker's Office.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech.

An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled list, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr O'Toole, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I suppose that I am bound to respond to the Minister's point of order. First, I am flattered that the Minister thinks that the official Opposition should adhere to precisely the same obligations as Ministers with regard to Assembly business. In fact, I am surprised by the idea that no Member can ever discuss a bit of business that is in the Order Paper. That seems to be a slightly surreal interpretation of rules. Nevertheless, I am sure that we will get a ruling on that. I hope that, in future, that means that the official Opposition in Dáil Éireann will not be saying "boo" about its motions before they are tabled before the Dáil. I look forward to seeing that. I also hope that we never hear any other announcements being trailed in the media.

I move to the business of today, however, because it is important business. This is the final Opposition day of the summer term, and, by now, we should have agreed a Budget. We should be scrutinising a Budget. In fact, we should have already scrutinised a Budget. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 — the legislation that, effectively, puts in place the rules for how this place operates and has done since the Good Friday Agreement — is clear: a Budget must be agreed by the Executive before the end of the financial year; that is, before 1 April. That did not happen. For nearly three months, that law has been — I do not know whether you say "broken the law" but the Executive have been in breach of that law.

What is supposed to happen after that, once a Budget is agreed, is that a Budget Bill is written, and that provides legal authorisation for spending, alongside a Main Estimates document that sets out the overall spending envelopes for individual Departments. None of that has happened; yet we are days from summer recess. This place will break up at the end of next week. At that point, we will be hurtling towards a 1 August deadline. At the 1 August deadline, the provisions set out in the Northern Ireland Act, as spelled out by the Finance Minister's own permanent secretary in the letter that he sent to other permanent secretaries in April, will kick in. That will mean that the Executive will legally be able to spend only 95% of last year's Budget. That is 95%. That is a 5% cut not even in the proposed draft Budget that the Minister himself introduced in January but in last year's Budget. That would represent brutal cuts, but that, currently, is the legal default that we are hurtling towards.

That is a factual legal position that the Opposition are setting out today. That should not be a surprise to anybody, and it should not be controversial that we state it. I am happy to give way to the Minister or, indeed, to any Member of an Executive party who wishes to tell me why I am factually wrong about that legal position. It is in a letter set out by the permanent secretary of the Department of Finance. That is an unacceptable position. It should not be controversial to say that a devolved Government refusing to set a Budget is unacceptable.

I will come to the fiscal position, the conversations — or the lack of them — with the UK Government, and the relative funding position of the Executive. I want to state firmly and clearly, however, that it is absurd and unacceptable for a devolved Government simply to refuse to set a Budget. The context is chaos in London. We have had a decade of chaos from successive British Governments, going right back to 2016 and the Brexit referendum, and for years before that we had austerity. Often referred to in this Chamber, rightly, is the fact that, at Westminster, decisions are made that have huge and often very negative consequences for people and public services in this region. The correct respond to the chaos visited by London is not simply to say, "God, isn't London chaotic? Aren't they awful?" but to say, "Yes, they are chaotic. Yes, we would make different choices".

That is all the more reason for us to take responsibility here, set a Budget, show leadership to the public of the North and not simply let the chaos in Westminster dictate terms for our people and public services. Yet the latter has been the consistent position of the current Executive and, indeed, previous Executives led by Sinn Féin and the DUP. Of course, for half of the past decade — this decade of Brexit-induced chaos — we did not even have an Executive. They were not even here to set a Budget, so it had to be set for them in London, whether we liked it or not, contributing directly to the decline in public services and the failure to deliver major capital projects, such as the A5 and Casement Park, which would be much further progressed had the Executive not been collapsed a decade ago.

All too often, however, our response to chaos in London is to say, "God, look, that proves that London is chaotic". Yes, but we should take more responsibility here. We should show leadership to the public whom we serve, but, yet again today, the response that we see to chaos and, indeed, cynicism from the UK Government is chaos and cynicism from the Executive. As I said, the legal position is clear. In not setting a Budget, the Executive are in breach of the law. I understand, and the Opposition agree with, the Minister of Finance and the Executive's saying that they need the best possible financial settlement. To ward off any accusations that we are simply taking the Brits' side, as it were, let me be clear that we support the Executive in getting the best funding possible from the UK Government. We support that and will make the case for it. Indeed, we did so to the Secretary of State when he was here the other day.

No claim for better funding from London justifies what is happening now, however. The Executive cannot say, on the one hand, that the UK Government are not giving us enough money, although they have more than a point when they say that, and, on the other hand, "Our reaction to that is to cut our own Budget even further". It is cutting off our nose to spite our face to cut our Budget by 5% because we do not like the Budget settlement that we have. The best way in which to make a better argument for an improved Budget settlement — a longer-term fiscal framework that works, which is what the Minister and his predecessors said that they wanted — is to take responsibility here, set a Budget and priorities and challenge the UK Government to fund us properly to do transformation. Instead, we invite cynicism. There is cynicism from the UK Government. Yes, the Minister is right when he talks about the Treasury's open-book exercise being, in large measure, an exercise in cynicism, but what is our response to that? It is simply to create more chaos by refusing to set a Budget.

As the official Opposition, we have set out today what the consequences of that will be. These are not made-up numbers. We have not extrapolated them using fancy equipment. We have simply looked at the numbers in the Department of Finance's permanent secretary's letter to Departments in April and at the numbers in the Fiscal Council sustainability report that was published last week. The Fiscal Council states that, legally, the Executive have £1 billion less to spend as a result of their not setting a Budget. That is the result of an Executive decision, and it is clearly an unacceptable situation. If it continues to be the case that the Executive do not set a Budget, what are the consequences? It could mean our having hundreds fewer police officers, nurses and teachers than could otherwise be recruited. To be clear, I am saying not that people will be sacked but that we will have much less to spend on recruitment. We will have much less to spend on vital infrastructure, from water to road to rail, and much less to spend on transforming our public services. Those are facts.

Do the Executive have a point when they say that the Scottish and Welsh Governments are funded further above their level of need? The Fiscal Council says that they do. We are not disputing that today — we are not arguing against that point — and that is why we will not divide the House on the Sinn Féin amendment, because it is not an unreasonable point to make. What is unreasonable, however, is to respond to that situation by simply refusing to set a Budget. I have never heard a Scottish or Welsh Government — any devolved Administration in Holyrood or Cardiff — challenge their funding settlement from Westminster and say, "We're simply going to refuse to set a Budget". It is not an acceptable response to the cynicism and chaos from the UK Government simply to create more chaos and cynicism in Northern Ireland. That is not acceptable. I need someone to explain to me how imposing a £1 billion cut on our Budget because the Executive want more money from the UK Government works, because I simply do not understand it.

We will hold the Executive to account for that failure. When the Finance Minister launched his draft Budget earlier this year, he said that it could be transformational. He said that, ten out of ten, a Budget would be agreed. Neither has turned out to be true, or certainly not yet. There are other Ministers who talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to taking responsibility, because they are clearly not taking responsibility for agreeing a Budget. Ultimately, the public send us here to take responsibility. They know that we could use more money and that there are constraints within which a devolved Government operate. They know all those things — they are not stupid — and we, as the Opposition, have never tried to gaslight them, which I was accused earlier of doing. We have never tried to gaslight the public. We have always been honest. The only thing that we have asked the Executive for is honesty with the public in return: set clear priorities and show ambition, but be honest with people and take responsibility. That is not happening. The Executive are failing the people of Northern Ireland by refusing to take responsibility. We are drifting into a summer of chaos.

We support calls for more money from the UK Government. We will join the Executive in making those calls — let me be clear about that in order to ward off any inaccurate slurs from Executive party representatives today — but what we will not do is stand aside and passively accept Executive-created chaos. Take responsibility, and we will join the Executive in pressing the UK Government for more support. The status quo is not acceptable. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Jemma Dolan to move the amendment.

Miss Dolan: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak in the debate will have five minutes.

Please open the debate on the amendment.

Miss Dolan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The failure to agree a multi-year Budget is a matter of deep concern. I welcome the first part of the motion that calls on the British Government to engage with the Executive in order to get a financial agreement that will ensure:

However, the second part of the motion is profoundly flawed and contradictory. On the one hand, it welcomes the efforts of local Ministers to press for more funding for public services, while, on the other hand, it states that the Executive are purposely deciding to "impose further austerity" by not agreeing to a Budget. That is why we have tabled our amendment.

If Mr O'Toole supports the need to put maximum pressure on the British Government, he should join others in the Chamber in presenting a united front to challenge Westminster, rather than taking another opportunity for political point-scoring. The fiscal pressures facing the Executive did not emerge overnight. They are the result of years of chronic underfunding by successive British Governments and a funding model that has consistently failed to recognise the real needs of people here. That is the root cause of the problem. Public services cannot be expected to plan effectively, invest strategically or deliver long-term transformation when they are forced to operate on a year-to-year basis and under the constant threat of financial uncertainty.

Last week's Fiscal Council sustainability report reinforces what Sinn Féin has been saying for years. The report highlights the scale of the challenge facing our institutions and points clearly to the fact that the Executive are operating from a lower funding base than comparable Administrations in Scotland and Wales. That reality cannot be ignored. Our public services are under immense pressure. Health workers, teachers and community organisations are all being asked to do more with less. Communities that have already endured years of austerity continue to feel the impact. That is why I support the Finance Minister in his efforts to continue to press the British Government for a fair financial settlement and to develop a long-term funding strategy that reflects the realities facing our communities.

The Executive must be provided with the resources necessary to meet the needs of workers, families, businesses and communities. Funding arrangements must be based on objective need, not political convenience. The people of the North deserve the same opportunity to access quality public services as citizens elsewhere on these islands. There is an onus on us as elected representatives to deliver better front-line services. However, we cannot get away from the fact that we are a devolved region with limited fiscal powers. Almost all our funding comes through the block grant. The British Government must therefore recognise their responsibility as those with the taxation powers and provide the resources required to address need, drive transformation and support economic growth.

The current Budget situation further vindicates why more people are questioning the constitutional status quo. Irish reunification would mean people here having locally elected representatives who would have more control over how public money is raised and distributed, instead of being negatively impacted on by tax decisions taken in London that are often used to benefit the wealthy or to fund militarisation. That context also needs to form the basis of our discussions when it comes to debates on our public finances and public services. I look forward to continuing that debate in the time ahead. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Ms Forsythe: As we speak about the Budget once again, I make the point that everyone here accepts that there is not enough money. Northern Ireland is being asked to deliver first-class public services with second-class funding. The gap between what our hospitals, our schools and our front-line services need and what the Treasury provides has been growing year after year. That is no longer sustainable, and it is impossible to make the books balance without additional funding.

Westminster cannot keep expecting Northern Ireland to do more with less. However, today's Opposition motion and its framing in the media is gaslighting the public. I am glad that the leader of the Opposition heard some of my comments on that this morning. The SDLP has been on the airwaves portraying itself as having discovered some great unknown: that we may be facing £1 billion of cuts.

The Opposition say that that will happen only if the Executive fail to set a Budget by 1 August, but the truth is that, if the Executive were to set a Budget now with the funds that are currently available to them, the £1 billion pressure would be signed up to and we would have to make £1 billion of cuts or raise £1 billion of revenue in this financial year. That is completely unrealistic and would decimate our public services.

Are the Opposition really saying to the Executive, "Agree a Budget now, rather than wait until the looming date of 1 August"? Are they saying that the SDLP supports £1 billion of cuts to Northern Ireland public services in 2026-27 that would see outworkings such as the loss of 6,000 teachers? The SDLP has not given many answers on where the money would come from. There is no constructive opposition here. Once again, the Opposition stand on the sidelines and criticise the Executive without bringing an alternative to the table. Where is the SDLP's draft alternative Budget for now with the funding that is currently available? What cuts does it suggest? Some specifics would be great. Would it make cuts to teachers, healthcare staff or the PSNI? The SDLP is on the airwaves slamming the fact that those things might be cut if we cannot agree a Budget by 1 August. Realistically, however, those are the things that Ministers would be signing up to if we were to agree a Budget today.

The Opposition should be honest with people. They need to move away from sound-bite politics and get serious. What are they actually doing? The SDLP has mentioned the current chaos in Westminster, yet, in the 2024 general election campaign, it boasted of the great influence that it would have in Westminster through its relationship with the SDLP's sister party, Labour, with which it sits on the same Benches. What has it used that influence for? There have been no constructive outcomes for Northern Ireland's finances and no constructive opposition. There is a pattern there.

We want to see a multi-year Budget in place to support our public services on a long-term, sustainable basis, but we need the right funding model in place to do that. We will continue to make the case for that and will strive for efficiencies and the transformation of the current delivery of our public services. We regularly meet the Government. Gordon Lyons recently met the Chancellor to seek a better deal for Northern Ireland, particularly in borrowing powers to build houses. The current drama in the Labour Party does not help us, but it will not deter us. When John O'Dowd laid the multi-year Budget earlier in the year, I was one of the first to criticise it. The Education Minister set out exactly what it would mean for education if those cuts were to be put in place. Ministers have fed back that the Executive have sat around the table and agreed that that Budget cannot be brought forward. It is not a Budget that prioritises things such as social housing, as there is insufficient capital allocation to enable the Communities Minister to meet the housing targets set out in the Programme for Government. The Budget is wholly inadequate to deliver the SEN agenda. As I said, Minister Givan has outlined the potential for mass compulsory teacher redundancies numbering 6,700. By the end of the multi-year period, the shortfall in Justice would equate to the combined annual budgets of the Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency (YJA) and Forensic Science Northern Ireland.

We believe in constructive solutions. The DUP will continue to work at all levels, including alongside Executive colleagues. Our MP team will continue to work alongside the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to secure, as soon as possible, a long-term funding package that is meaningful to Northern Ireland, enables a multi-year Budget to be delivered and is sustainable to enable us to deliver high-quality public services for the people in Northern Ireland. We believe that the amendment improves the motion and will support it.

Mr Dickson: We cannot remain in a state of suspension for ever. The uncertainty caused by the absence of a multi-year Budget is plunging our public services into disarray and depriving us of key economic opportunities, holding our communities back. The draft Budget previously proposed by the Minister simply is not workable. Departments report a £700 million funding gap in year 1. By the end of a three-year Budget cycle, public services will face swingeing cuts and austerity.

Take the Department of Justice. That Department alone would be underfunded to the tune of £215 million by 2028-29. That is the equivalent of the entire budget of the Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science. The Assembly faces stark choices, and agreeing the draft Budget as it stands is not a silver bullet, nor is it sustainable for us to continue in the absence of a Budget. It is vital, therefore, that we break the cycle of crisis and collapse that has been destroying our public finances. Stop-go government, austerity, Brexit, the global pandemic, reckless overspending by Ministers and an almost allergic disposition when it comes to making transformative decisions over the past decade have deprived us of key opportunities to place the Executive on a more sustainable footing. As a result, we have some of the longest hospital waiting lists in western Europe, stubbornly high levels of economic inactivity, failing infrastructure and unacceptable housing waiting lists. Simply put, it cannot continue.

When the Assembly was restored, the Alliance Party made a clear case to the Government that a Finance Minister and an independent commission should be jointly appointed to assess Northern Ireland's finances and funding formula. That was not taken forward, and it was a missed opportunity. Again today, our focus is not on party politics or point-scoring but, rather, on solutions. We have a short window of opportunity in which we can change the trajectory of our finances. The Alliance Party is simply proposing this: a clear plan to tackle the cost of division, duplication and waste in our system; an Executive-wide commitment to public service transformation, particularly in Health and Education, our two highest-spending Departments; a rapid review of our funding formula to ensure that Northern Ireland gets a fair deal on its public finances when compared with other devolved nations; and a willingness around the Executive table to look at progressive revenue-raising, ensuring that those who have the broadest shoulders in our society bear the fairer costs, without placing additional burdens on hard-pressed families.

I will look at each of those in turn. The cost of division is estimated to be upwards of £800 million per year, which is money that we can ill-afford to squander, and the Alliance Party's previous proposal was that we put a statutory duty on the Fiscal Council to have due regard to the cost of division in its work. Secondly, progress on public service transformation has simply not been rapid enough. The public service transformation board has made a promising start over the past two years. However, it needs to go further and faster. Thirdly, our funding formula. After years of false narratives that Northern Ireland politicians were guilty of begging-bowl politics, the UK Treasury finally conceded in negotiations that Northern Ireland had been underfunded. Just last week, the Fiscal Council confirmed that Northern Ireland will be short-changed anywhere between £1 billion and £3 billion compared with our counterparts in Scotland and Wales. To be clear, the ask is not for special treatment but for equal treatment with the rest of the United Kingdom. Finally, while revenue-raising will not plug the hole in our finances, it can and would improve the Executive's credibility. Proposals are already on the table around changes to our rating system that would ensure that it is fairer, progressive and consistent with the Executive's priorities.

On public services, we deserve consistent, stable and accountable leadership over the medium to long term, rather than the boom and bust that we have experienced over previous decades. Collapsed Executives and political crises, followed by Secretaries of State flying in with chequebooks, are not the solution for public services in Northern Ireland. If we are serious about sustainable finances, the time has come for democratic renewal and reforms to Stormont to fix our broken politics. It is time to remove the vetoes and return the place to the service of working families across Northern Ireland.

Mr Kingston: I rise as a DUP member of the Committee for Finance. I hope that all parties across the Assembly agree that the funding that we receive from Treasury is not enough to meet our level of need in Northern Ireland. However, there is clearly a difference in what the response to that should be.

The SDLP, in its motion, criticises our Executive for failing to agree a multi-year Budget based on our current funding from Treasury. The SDLP should be clear on what agreeing to that Budget would mean in the current financial year. It would mean agreeing to a Budget more than £1 billion below our combined departmental needs for the current year, particularly in the public-facing Departments of Health, Education and Justice. It would mean agreeing to implement cuts of £1 billion that would involve substantial job losses, closure of services, poorer education provision and longer waiting lists for health. Is that what the SDLP wants? Perhaps, as an Opposition party, that is what it wants in order to increase public discontent. The SDLP is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. At the same time as it criticises the Executive for not implementing the current block grant, it says that the block grant is not sufficient. The SDLP cannot have it both ways. Perhaps the SDLP could do more to persuade its sister party at Westminster to increase the block grant to the Executive and the people of Northern Ireland. The gap between what our public services need and what Treasury provides is growing year-on-year, and it is no longer feasible to make the books balance without additional funding.

The permanent secretary recently confirmed to the Finance Committee that, without an agreed Budget by 1 August, Departments can allocate only 95% of last year's Budget. However, it is nonsense and scaremongering by the SDLP to claim, as it does in the motion, that the final 5% could not be allocated subsequently. That is a fallacy; of course it could be unlocked.

Last week, the Finance Committee received important figures comparing the funding from Treasury per person in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom with the official level of need calculation, which is based on population characteristics and socio-economic conditions. The figures showed that, while Northern Ireland receives just 0·63% above its recognised level of need of 124% in the current financial year, Scotland receives over 20% more than its most recent recognised level of need, taking it to over 125% and above the per capita figure in Northern Ireland. Likewise, Wales receives over 8·5% above its most recent recognised level of need, bringing its figure to around 124% as well. Northern Ireland needs recognition of its additional needs, such as its rurality and the level of need here.

The Democratic Unionist Party will continue to lead the charge for a sustainable Budget for Northern Ireland while pushing for greater efficiency and transformation in our public services. The amendment in the name of Jemma Dolan and Deirdre Hargey is an improvement on the original motion, removing the nonsense about a 5% cut and highlighting the better funding settlement for Scotland and Wales. The DUP will support that amendment.

Mr Gaston: Certainly, there are elements of the motion that have merit and others that are misguided. You will find no dispute from me that Northern Ireland would be better off with an agreed Budget and a Government with a plan for not just the incoming year but the years ahead. However, I will make two observations about that. First, the Budget must be fair and equitable. The Finance Minister has told us that time and time again, but the draft that he produced was certainly not that.

We find that over £101·5 million is committed to Casement, which is an increase in the original commitment to the project of over 60%. Some months ago, when I brought a proposal to the House to seek clawback of some of that cost to the public purse, some of the loudest howls in this place came from many of the SDLP Members in the Opposition. Why? Because they are happy to throw money at the GAA. There is no parallel hike in the subregional stadia projects, which, combined, get a mere £67 million, with many deserving clubs missing out entirely on the funding.

Then, of course, we have that old chestnut: the A5. How many millions are set aside in the draft Budget for that? The figure is no longer in the millions. It has ballooned to a figure of £1·1 billion set aside for the A5. Why has that project been so problematic and expensive? It is because of the very climate change legislation that the House put in place, with the SDLP being among its most vocal advocates.

The Sinn Féin amendment, which parallels the SDLP motion, defaults to its favourite place and the usual position of, "Blame the Brits", even though Northern Ireland is funded to 124% compared with England. Sinn Féin proposes that the Assembly recognises that the Fiscal Council report:

Really? What does the Fiscal Council report say on page 27? It states:

Those are not my words or Treasury's words; those are the words of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council in the very report that Sinn Féin cites in support of its amendment.

Only a few lines later, the report states:

We will move to page 19, which states:

I am all for making the case for a fair funding deal for Northern Ireland, but the premise of the Sinn Féin amendment is undermined by the very report that it cites and relies on.

In considering all things equally, we have to look at what the problem is. The problem is Stormont and the priorities. Politics is all about priorities, and, over the years, we have seen time and time again that the Executive do not take the hard decisions. If they are to be taken seriously, we need to get our own house in order before we continue to roll out the Oliver Twist mentality of asking for more money. I certainly do not believe that, if we get funded to whatever level we ask for, all our ills in this place will disappear. The problems go a lot deeper than that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Gaston: There are structural problems and cultural problems —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Time is up.

Mr Gaston: — and that is what we need to deal with first.

Mr Carroll: I hope that Members will join me in saying, "Slán"

to Keir Starmer and "Good riddance" to the man, because he was a disaster for working-class communities in Ireland, England and elsewhere. His Budgets have been absolutely brutal.

As has been said in the debate already, from the end of July, with no Budget agreed, the Executive will be legally able to spend just 95% of last year's allocation. That is a self-imposed 5% cut, with no vote and no mandate from the people who will pay for it. To make matters worse, that 95% is measured against the opening figure, before a single penny of in-year funding. If we layer inflation on top, we are looking at a cut that bites far deeper than the 5% mentioned, affecting services that are already stretched to breaking point. It is not the people who fail to agree the Budget who will pay; it is workers and families, who are already being squeezed from every side.

Hospital doctors have been balloted for strike action after being offered a pay rise that does not come close to undoing 15 years of real-term pay erosion. Health and education workers are being driven towards the picket lines simply to stop their wages falling further behind. Those are the same people who hold our public services together, and they are being told to do more for less year after year. The cost-of-living crisis is now a permanent fixture in politics. In Belfast alone — to take one example — the average price of a new let private rent is now over £1,100 a month. House prices here are rising at roughly six times the UK average, which is putting homeownership, and even rent, out of reach for an entire generation. Food and energy prices are still through the roof, forcing thousands of families to make impossible choices. Meanwhile, supermarkets make record profits and not a word is uttered about it. That is the reality in working-class communities across the North: people are not getting by; they are going without. On top of that, the Executive propose to spend 5% less. To be fair to the Finance Minister, he is right to say, as he has done consistently, that Westminster has short-changed this place for years. There is no disagreement from me on that. Nobody should pretend that the Labour Party has been any better than the Tories were before it. We are therefore all in agreement, or are for the most part, that we are funded below our level of need. Many of us know that Westminster does not give a damn about the lives of working-class people here.

When, however, the Finance Minister tells us in the Chamber and at the Finance Committee that the only lack of urgency about the Budget is across the water, I have to push back and strongly disagree. The Executive have had months. The choice to drift towards a de facto Budget cut is one that was made in this Building by Ministers from here. We cannot rage against austerity from London while quietly imposing it from Belfast. The community and voluntary sector was dealt a massive blow back in April with the re-profiling of the local growth fund. Shamefully, the Secretary of State ignored the voices of community workers — the experts on the ground — who warned about the disastrous consequences of that. The Executive refused to step in with the necessary funding, however. Tens of thousands of vulnerable adults and young people have now lost access to employment support. Hundreds of jobs have already started to disappear from the sector. It is simply not good enough for the Executive constantly to point the finger at Westminster while refusing to move mountains to support people and the services on which they rely.

I would have preferred to support the motion unamended, as it refused to let Executive parties off the hook and demanded that the Minister explain to every worker and family who is bracing for the squeeze why, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, the answer to underfunding is to fund our services even less. Hopefully, the Minister can explain that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank the Members who have spoken. I now call the Minister of Finance to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said at the outset when I made my point of order, it is disappointing, if not entirely surprising, that the Opposition have chosen to approach the issue in the way in which they have, rather than by engaging seriously with the substance of the Budget and the very real challenges that are involved in funding and delivering public services here. They appear to be far more interested in chasing headlines and securing sound bites. That was plain to see from the fact that, rather than give the House its place, the Opposition issued a press release yesterday in advance of the debate.

Perhaps most telling of all is that the figures on which the Opposition have based their case are, by their own admission, merely illustrative, yet that important qualification was tucked away on the final page of the briefing paper. The foundation of their argument is illustrative figures that have been selectively presented for political effect. The need for stable funding is real and widely shared across the Chamber. The motion, however, presents a narrative that is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, fundamentally misleading. Indeed, if I were to sum up Mr O'Toole's contribution to the debate, it would be in this fashion: he spent 75% of his time telling me that he agreed with me, with the Executive and with the point that the British Government have been underfunding this place and that he would support us in our bids to the British Government for more funding. He then spent the remaining 25% arguing against that point by trying to construct an argument that the Executive and the Finance Minister were in the wrong. We are either right on the issue or we are wrong.

I know that there will always be party politics at play in the Chamber. That is OK, as it is part of the debating culture. I am not arguing or pushing back against that, but when the leader of the Opposition, by his own admission, argues that the British Government are underfunding this place and that the Executive are therefore right to engage with the British Government and push them on the issue of receiving proper funding, it seems an ill-thought-out argument to make when he comes to the Chamber with a motion that calls on the Executive to finalise the Budget ahead of any conclusion of discussions with the British Government.

I have to say that this is part of the shambles that is having to deal with Westminster, but I expected, and, indeed, was scheduled, to have intense engagement with the British Government this week on the need for the Executive to be funded fairly and sustainably. Unfortunately, we have seen that a Prime Minister has stood down again in Downing Street, which, I suspect, will delay that engagement. It will certainly have an impact on it in some way. I had hoped that, if not by the end of this week, certainly by next week, we would have reached some sort of conclusion on an offer from the Government, a proper funding package would have been put in place and then I would be able to bring a further draft Budget to the Executive for discussion and future agreement. We are not in that position as a result of antics elsewhere.

It is clear that, when you have a debate where the leader of the Opposition, Timothy Gaston of the TUV and Gerry Carroll of People Before Profit are generally in agreement with one another, we are in a very strange and wonderful land. It brings me to my point that party politicking and gamesmanship are at play here. I will certainly not be bringing Timothy Gaston along to any engagement with the British Government: he has swallowed their line hook, line and sinker. He is now their spokesperson. He was a spokesperson for the Tories. Now he is a spokesperson for Labour. I know that his ambition is to be a spokesperson for the Reform Party. He certainly will not be coming along as part of any delegation that I will bring to see the new Chancellor of the Exchequer when they turn up because, from his point of view, this place is properly funded; we need to suck it up and get on with it. The only solution that he had

— this is your solution — is to stop Fenians playing football in Casement Park. That is your solution to everything. No matter what debate we have in the Chamber, you bring up Casement Park. It is truly a sectarian argument coming from you as regards that matter, so you will not be coming on the delegation.

If Mr O'Toole works out what his position is on support: whether he supports the 75% of his argument that he made today or the 25% of his argument against us, he will make a useful ally if he comes along. At this stage, Mr Carroll appears to be the only person in the Chamber who wants to support the original motion, which sets out a position that is not in favour of further funding for the Executive; is not in favour of funding for public-sector workers, does not support teachers, does not support healthcare workers and does not support doctors, but he is in support of it.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in a wee second. I cannot understand that position. As I said at the start of my contribution, I can understand party politics at play, but you also have to, from time to time, have a collegiate approach to these matters and accept the reality of the stark figures that are staring out at us. Scotland is funded well above its need to the tune of somewhere in the region of £3 billion. Wales is funded above its need to the tune of £1 billion. I, as Finance Minister, am calling on the British Government to fairly and sustainably fund our Executive.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way. He knows all too well that I have consistently said that this place is underfunded. I have also consistently raised the need for proper taxes on profits, something that I do not think that the Minister has articulated, but if there is a meeting with the new Chancellor, I will be happy to go along if he wants to bring me along with him.

Mr O'Dowd: If you support the original motion today, that is contrary to your position. It is absolutely contrary to your position.

All I am asking for across the Assembly Chamber is unity of purpose. The unity of purpose is that we send out a message with a united voice to the Government, or whomever the new Prime Minister and Chancellor will be — I suspect that there will be a change of Chancellor — to fund this place fairly and then allow the Executive to make decisions on their Budget. Then, there will be a challenge in the Chamber on what the priorities are and on what people believe should be funded over and above other things.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in a moment. I look forward to that debate, because challenges will remain with regard to how we deliver our public services, and I look forward to hearing the alternatives from colleagues. Yes, I will give way.

Mr Gaston: Does the Finance Minister not accept that, to strengthen the position in the argument that he makes, this Executive need to get their own house in order before going and simply asking for more money? Look at what we have prioritised in this place: we have prioritised MLA pay and the A5 scheme that has blossomed and bloomed out of control. With Casement, all I am asking for is equity: stadia funding is treated on the same premise that, if one goes up, another goes up. I was looking for clawback, but no, no, no, that is not good enough for nationalism in the House. To strengthen your case, you have to get your own house in order before you put out your hand for more money.

Mr O'Dowd: You were looking for clawback from only one sporting organisation.

On the point about getting your house in order, I am very robust with my Executive colleagues about the efficient and effective use of public resources and funding and ensuring that they are used to their optimum and that we are getting a good return on that investment and making a real change to people's lives. However, the Member referred to the Fiscal Council's comments on funding from as far back as 2018 and 2019. The reality is this: the Executive have not been funded in a fair, equitable and sustainable way over the past x number of years. When we continue to go from crisis to crisis in relation to finances, it makes it much more difficult to sustain public services or our Budget and budget planning at the level that is required.

The point that I am making, which has been made by others, to the Chancellor and the Government is that, if the Executive are to get on to a sustainable footing, a long-term funding programme has to be in place rather than what has happened in the past, where we had a restoration package. While that was welcome and allowed us to stabilise funding for a short number of years, once that stabilisation package left, the Executive immediately ran into challenges because they did not have sufficient funding to run public services. Some people refer to overspends, but I refer to underinvestment, where the Executive have been left in many instances with no choice other than to overspend in order to maintain services at the level that they are at. Even that level causes deep concern to the public now, because none of us can say that our public services are at the standard that we would like them to be.

Mr Martin: I thank the Finance Minister for giving way. In the first instance, if he is taking Mr O'Toole and Mr Carroll to meet the Chancellor, I wonder whether any tickets will be available for that meeting.

The Minister mentioned efficiency savings. Is he aware of a mechanism that is in place to drive forward those efficiencies in Departments? I ask that question honestly, and I am not sure what the answer is. He raised the important point about how it is not just about funding but about efficiencies. Does he have mechanisms in place to look at our Departments and drive forward efficiencies?

Mr O'Dowd: Whether you get an invite to that meeting depends on whether you behave yourselves.

When it comes to efficiency savings, there has been a lot of focus on the challenges or continued pressures on public services, which are well over a billion pounds. Aligned to that, Departments have also made savings in the region of half a billion pounds. Efficiencies and savings are being made across a range of Departments. I have individual discussions with Ministers when I believe that matters could be carried out further or other areas could be looked at or where challenges remain in areas. There might be pushback from Executive colleagues on some of those areas and agreement on others, but, ultimately, it is down to each Minister to run their Department, look for efficiencies across it and ensure that it is being run properly and effectively for the public.

We also have our transformation moneys and the public-sector transformation board, which is having a significant impact not only on the projects that have been funded but on the mindset and in allowing the Civil Service and the sectors to look at doing things in a different way. You will also know that I have set aside a significant amount of money in the draft Budget to continue the transformation programme. There are areas of ongoing work and further areas in which work can be carried out.

To bring the discussion to a conclusion, the motion, as amended, is the way forward, but I understand that there will always be party politics in this place. That is part of the process, and it is healthy. Debate and challenge are healthy, but let us present a unified approach at this stage. I hope that we can reach a successful conclusion with the Government in relation to further funding. That will bring our next challenge: agreeing a Budget. That will bring further debate and engagement on those matters, to which I look forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Deirdre Hargey to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Deirdre, you have up to five minutes.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much. I thank everybody who spoke in this important debate. It is important to point out at the start that the issue before us is not simply the absence of an agreed Budget. At the core of the issue is the absence of an appropriate Budget to fund our public services at the level of need. Those services continue to operate in a system of chronic underfunding, which has been imposed by consecutive British Governments. Indeed, the Fiscal Council's recent sustainability report makes that point very clearly. Whilst it highlights that operating without an agreed Budget is unsustainable, it also confirms that the Executive are not funded at a level that reflects our need, and that is having a profound impact. We know that if a Budget is not agreed over the summer, the permanent secretary in the Department of Finance has the legal power to authorise up to 95% of the 2025-26 spend. That is a legal safeguard that ensures that public services can continue to receive funding for that period.

The challenges are taking place against the backdrop of continued underfunding and significant financial pressures. For too long, our public services, workers and communities have been expected to do more with less. We will continue to manage resources responsibly, as the Minister highlighted, but there is a clear need for a fair and sustainable funding model that enables us to invest in the services that people rely on every day. The answer is not the short-term fixes or cash injections that we have had in the past, which have allowed for the repeated Treasury script of record settlements and inability of the Executive to manage their finances — scripts that are often parroted in the Chamber. The crisis stems from a structurally flawed funding framework at the fiscal centre in Westminster. Short-term fixes will not resolve the fundamental issue. What we need is a shift towards long-term needs-based financial packages.

For me, of course, constitutional change would be the best overall reform that we could get. We know that fiscal policy at Westminster is being discussed in places such as Scotland and Wales as well, as they look to where their futures are better placed. It is clear that there is a huge disconnect between Whitehall and the reality that is being felt by people on the ground. A British Treasury policy that is managing decay, real-terms cuts and disastrous policy decisions such as Brexit or the funding of wars over public services comes on top of existing disparities between how public services are funded here by the Executive and how they are funded in Wales and Scotland. That disparity causes us to lose out on an additional £1 billion to £3 billion annually.

The Fiscal Council's sustainability report backed up the analysis of the Minister and his officials over recent months. The motion makes no mention of that, nor that citizens here and our public services are an afterthought in Westminster fiscal policy. Why should we receive less funding here? Why should our citizens and our public services be treated as second class? That is why Sinn Féin's amendment is so important. It recognises both the scale of the fiscal challenge that faces the Assembly and the reality of continued underinvestment by the British Government. The Opposition say that they are not willing to stand by in this chaos. Why is it that they are willing to stand by in the chaos that is being created at Westminster? Is it because it is their sister party that is creating that chaos? As was said earlier, the public here will no longer be gaslighted. It is not good enough just to accept crumbs off the table.

That brings me to the TUV. I am not surprised that the Member tried to use an Oliver Twist analogy. 'Oliver Twist' was about the elite punishing the poor, and that is what we are seeing now with Westminster fiscal policy. I am not surprised that the TUV is looking to the interests of the elite at Whitehall over the interests of people here who are struggling. The Member may be used to saying, "Yes sir, give me more", but we are not.

There is no doubt that we need an agreed Budget as soon as possible in order to have certainty and the ability to plan, and particularly to have the three-year Budget that the Minister has been trying to prepare. We also need to be honest that a multi-year Budget, while essential, can only deliver its full potential if it is supported by a fair and sustainable funding settlement. A multi-year Budget would allow for better planning of, greater investment in and the major transformation of our public services, but it cannot be built on the foundations of continued underfunding. I join the Minister in saying that we need to work collectively —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Miss Hargey: I urge everyone to support the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Matthew O'Toole to conclude and make his winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to make a winding-up speech on the motion. The factual answer to Ms Hargey as to why the motion did not mention the Fiscal Council's Budget sustainability report was because it was not published when we drafted the motion. As the official Opposition, we have to operate to very long business deadlines. We agreed to our Opposition day's being pushed back in order to enable more time for the Justice Bill. That is why it was not mentioned in the motion.

I have acknowledged the Fiscal Council's analysis. We are not trying to gainsay or downplay it. In fact, we acknowledge it. However, the appropriate way for the Executive to respond to it and use it to best leverage an improved financial settlement from the UK Government is not simply to chaotically say, "Don't blame us, guv; we're not going to take any responsibility", but to choose a set of priorities, agree a plan between the Executive parties, go to the UK Government with purpose and professionalism and say, "You need to fund this place appropriately". As the Opposition, we would genuinely endorse that. You should not simply bluff your way through, publish a draft Budget, say, "This is great", talk about party politicking and then, when the Budget is not agreed, say, "Actually, that thing that I published and that my colleagues now will not agree to was awful".

Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a second.

As the official Opposition, we will be absolutely robust in holding the Executive to account, because that is the official Opposition's job. I say it again and again, and we make no apology for it. It would be a preposterous situation if, before we broke up for summer recess, the official Opposition were not even willing to mention to the Executive the fact that they had not agreed a Budget, while acknowledging that the UK Government, chaotic as they have been, have had a part to play in that.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for giving way. You mentioned that the Executive need to have a plan in engaging with Westminster, but we had one when we agreed the fiscal framework and looked at the level of need. The fundamental flaw here is that, historically, we have been underfunded from the baseline. Unless we address that, we will come round to these issues year-on-year.

Mr O'Toole: We are now debating much of what is in the Fiscal Council paper, which may be a good thing. That is why we have a Fiscal Council, which we have just passed into law. Its paper states:

We agree. However, it goes on to say:

— we can have our views on the cynicism or otherwise of the Treasury —

We agree, because it is proven. I do not disagree with the argument that Scotland and Wales are currently funded further above their level of need than Northern Ireland. The question is how we go about making that case. Is the best way to make it simply to introduce a draft Budget, refuse to pass it and then say, "Not our problem"? Genuinely, I do not think that it is. It is not credible or reasonable.

I will respond to a few of the comments that Members made, starting with the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, who accused us of gaslighting. She talked about the SDLP having an alternative draft Budget. Well, we are doing our job today in holding the Executive to account. The fact that the media are reporting on the £1 billion self-imposed cut — I will come back to that £1 billion, because it is a different £1 billion from the £1 billion pressure that has been talked about — and that we are exposing and highlighting it is because we are doing our job. The fact that you all feel uncomfortable about it is, I am afraid, real politics. We make absolutely no apology for that.

The Deputy Chair mentioned the £1 billion of pressure. Pressures that exist as a result of the draft Budget that the Minister published in January are not met. Obviously, there is a reserve claim. There is a loan to repay the reserve claim, and there are pressures that Departments, including those led by Diane Forsythe's colleagues, are reporting. Those are in addition to the cut that will happen if a Budget is not agreed. That means that there will be those pressures, and there will then be, legally, another £1 billion cut because a Budget has not been agreed. Not setting a Budget is not a way to put pressure on London; it puts pressure on our public services and our people. We need to take responsibility and be honest about that.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that, if a Budget were to be set and signed up to by Ministers today, that would mean signing up to £1 billion of cuts up front as well as the £1 billion that he mentioned in his motion? Does he have an alternative proposal for a Budget that could be agreed today?

Mr O'Toole: We have lots of alternative proposals, which we have published over the past year and a half. We are not, as you will have seen, in government. We did not get enough seats to be in the Executive, so our job is to hold the rest of you to account. We make absolutely no apology for that. It is Sinn Féin and the DUP, alongside the Alliance Party and others in the Executive, who have the power. They have the ministerial cars, the ministerial salaries and the thousands of civil servants. You guys do your jobs; we will do ours.

I will go on and talk about some of the other points that were made. Stewart Dickson was correct to reflect on the need to take responsibility and make choices. We are supposed to be a devolved Assembly; power is devolved here.

I agree with Sinn Féin: we want to see ultimate power devolved back to this island and constitutional change. The step on that journey that I want to take is our taking responsibility in the here and now, rather than simply allowing a UK Government, whether Labour, Tory, Reform or any other complexion, to have all the power and responsibility. I want us to take responsibility here. It is worth saying that we have made zero progress on fiscal devolution under successive Sinn Féin Finance Ministers since the publication of the Fiscal Commission report.

Mr Gaston gave his perennial interpretation. I do not agree at all with the begging bowl depiction of politics, but I agree that the Executive are dysfunctional, that they refuse responsibility and that they are willing to throw all responsibility to London. I also think that successive UK Governments have been cynical; the two things can be true at the same time. The Minister said earlier that I was contradictory because, on the one hand, I criticised the Executive while, on the other, I criticised the UK Government. Shock horror: the two things can be true at the same time. The Executive can be dysfunctional and chaotic, and the UK Government can be both of those things, too. I think that the average person watching on their television screen and reading their newspaper sees exactly that and sees how those two dysfunctionalities reinforce each other. It makes the case for leadership and responsibility to be taken here. If, like me, you want to build a new Ireland, as the Finance Minister and his colleagues say that they do, you should take more responsibility here first of all, and then build a new Ireland. We have to take responsibility and show leadership, rather than simply bluffing our way through, publishing a draft Budget and saying, "Ah, this is grand, sure. We'll maybe get agreement on this". We are supposed to be engaged in the biggest act of transformation and constitutional change in western Europe — that is what we want — since the end of the Cold War. We cannot simply mosey into it, shrug our shoulders and refuse to accept responsibility here locally where we have it. That undermines our broader case.

Minister, you said earlier that we are either right or wrong. It is more complicated than that. I acknowledge that you and the Fiscal Council are right: there is a discrepancy in funding between Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland. However, you are wrong to say that that simply absolves the Executive of responsibility for public services here. There is a range of choices that have not been made by Ministers. You published a draft Budget and insisted to me that it was going to be passed. You encouraged your colleagues to pass it. I do not know what has changed, but I am happy to give way.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for giving way. You are one or two steps ahead of the argument. We are still engaged with the British Government on proper and fair funding for this place. That engagement needs to conclude. In my opinion, the Executive will have to pass a Budget at some stage in the future.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate your giving me that clarity. We have done our job today as the official Opposition by proposing the motion because we now have more clarity from the Finance Minister on the position. We are told not to table such motions and that we are letting the side down by holding the Executive to account. Hang on: there are community and voluntary sector organisations here that do not know what their funding is going to be to deliver public services next year. The deputy First Minister said a few weeks ago that the absence of a Budget was holding up support for domestic violence victims. The Communities Minister said that the absence of a Budget was holding up the issuing of housing support. You can multiply that by God knows how many things across our society. Universities are having their capital budgets and other things squeezed. That is not just because of the funding settlement from London; it is because they are operating within contingency envelopes, as was set out in a letter from your permanent secretary, Minister. It not good enough for the Executive to simply shrug off all responsibility, pretend that there is nothing to see here and cc London. No. The UK Government need to fund this place properly. We, as the Opposition, will be serious and constructive about that, but we will not allow the Executive to wash their hands of taking responsibility and impose further cuts on top of those that have already happened, simply because of their own inaction and chaos. We will hold them to account. The public here deserve better.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There was only one dissenting voice. That can be noted, Mr Gaston.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Again, there was one dissenting voice. That can be noted, Mr Gaston.

I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr McGrath: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr McGrath: The motion goes to the very heart of whether people trust this place or not, because, when they look at public appointments in Northern Ireland, too many people no longer believe that the best person gets the job. Too often, what they believe they are seeing is political networks rewarding political insiders. Northern Ireland has seen that culture before. For years, politics here developed a reputation for nepotism, with political offices being staffed by relatives or family members, and that grated with the public. Much of that practice was challenged, because people understood something fundamentally important, which is that the use of public money and appointments to public positions should never become extensions of party machinery or political dynasties.

Although some of that old culture has diminished, a new perception has emerged in its place. Increasingly, the concern is not about who gets employed in constituency offices but about who gets appointed to boards, who gets a position of influence and who get a seat around the table where public money and public services are discussed and where public policy is shaped. Again, people are noticing a familiar pattern. When a DUP Minister of Education appoints a sitting DUP councillor as chair of the Education Authority, people take notice. When Sinn Féin Ministers appoint Sinn Féin representatives to public bodies, people take notice. Even today, a DUP Minister has appointed a DUP councillor to a public board. Sure, keep it all in the political family. When politically connected figures repeatedly emerge to take up appointments that are overseen by their own parties, with little independent oversight and limited scrutiny, people draw their own conclusions.

Ministers cannot simply dismiss those concerns by saying that a process was technically followed, because the issue is bigger than process. The issue is one of confidence. Do people genuinely believe that such appointments are based on merit? Do they genuinely believe that the best person is getting the job or that political access, party proximity and party loyalty matter most? That is the question, and it is a dangerous question for democracy, because trust in institutions is already fragile. Public appointments should not operate as political rewards. They should not be consolation prizes. They should not be a vehicle for parties to extend their influence through arm's-length bodies (ALBs). They should be about one thing and one thing only: getting the best person into a position in which they can deliver for the public. It should be the person with the strongest skills, the greatest expertise and the clearest ability to improve outcomes, not the person with the right party membership card.

These appointments matter enormously. These bodies oversee huge sums of public money. They influence education, investment, infrastructure and public services across the North. What makes the issue so important is that it speaks directly to a wider problem that is facing politics today: trust. People were promised government that would be open, accountable and focused on delivering for the public. They were promised better. Instead, too many people are seeing a system in which the same parties hold power, make the appointments and then insist that there is nothing wrong. What we have is not working. Confidence in public appointments has been weakened. That matters, because public appointments are not just some side issue. As I have said, these bodies oversee our schools, investment agencies, public services and significant amounts of public money. The public deserve confidence that positions are being filled by the best candidate available.

We saw the issue arise recently with the controversy surrounding summer schemes for children with special educational needs. Families were, rightly, furious. Children who rely on those schemes were facing the prospect of losing vital support. When questions were raised, it became clear that the board responsible is heavily populated with representatives from all four Executive parties, yet, when concerns were raised, we were told that they were somehow not political appointments but political representatives. The public are not fools; they understand how politics works, and they understand influence. They also understand why scrutiny matters. If parties are happy to celebrate appointments when things are going well, they cannot suddenly distance themselves when difficult decisions are taken. Accountability cannot be optional. If appointments are not genuinely merit-based, public confidence collapses. That is why the absence of a Commissioner for Public Appointments for more than four years was so serious. The independent watchdog responsible for protecting confidence in the system simply was not there. At precisely the moment when confidence needed to be strengthened, oversight disappeared. Leaving the office vacant for so long sent entirely the wrong message. At a time when transparency needed to be reinforced, scrutiny was weakened.

The SDLP believes that public service should be open to everyone. Talented people from every background should feel that these opportunities are genuinely accessible to them. Appointments should be determined by ability, competency and integrity, not political patronage dressed up as procedure. The Executive often talk of restoring confidence in politics. Confidence is not restored through speeches. It is restored through actions, when people can see that public appointments are based on merit, expertise and integrity; when positions that are funded by taxpayers are genuinely open to everyone and genuinely awarded to the strongest candidate; and when independent scrutiny is welcomed rather than avoided. That perception matters. If people believe that public bodies are being stacked with political allies, trust in our institutions suffers.

What we have is not working, but it does not have to be this way. We can do better. We can build a public appointments system that commands confidence because it is transparent, independent and beyond reproach — a system in which the public can once again believe that the best person, not the best-connected person, gets the job. That is how we rebuild trust, strengthen confidence in devolution and begin to build something new.

Mrs Erskine: There are many burning issues outside the Chamber, yet here we have the Opposition using vital time to score points on a matter that is never mentioned to me on the doors. I never hear this on the doors, and I go out to speak to people regularly.

Many individuals across all political parties who are appointed to public bodies have served in elected office. The argument that is being advanced by the SDLP appears to suggest that former Ministers, councillors or MLAs should somehow be excluded from public appointments. Such an approach would deprive public bodies of valuable experience, knowledge and expertise.

The SDLP cannot simultaneously demand strong and experienced leadership in public bodies while objecting when experienced public servants apply successfully for positions through the public appointments process.

The motion appears to be less concerned about improving governance and more about focusing on political point-scoring. It highlights the absence of a Commissioner for Public Appointments. The absence of such a commissioner, however, does not mean the absence of scrutiny. Departments are bound by a public appointments code, legal obligations and established audit requirements. Robust safeguards exist, and public appointments remain subject to oversight and accountability. That is not to say that we do not share concerns about certain appointments.

I was surprised that the SDLP, when opening the debate, did not once reference a recent Invest NI appointment. Invest NI plays a critical role in attracting business, securing investment and supporting economic growth across Northern Ireland. The decisions that it takes today will help to shape the economy for generations. It is essential, therefore, that appointments to its board command public confidence. That is why the histories of those being appointed are looked at. Alongside others with close connections to Sinn Féin, the Economy Minister appointed Peter Lynch to the board of Invest NI. Mr Lynch was convicted in 1993 of conspiracy to murder an RUC officer. Such an appointment does not send the right message to potential investors considering Northern Ireland as a destination for investment and growth, yet the SDLP chose in its opening remarks to attack DUP appointments more so than an appointment that was made by Sinn Féin: someone who was convicted of conspiracy to murder an RUC officer. It is an appointment such as that that risks undermining public confidence in the appointments process.

Let me be clear: where DUP Ministers made appointments, they were conducted through an honest, open and transparent process. Individuals were appointed on merit, ability and suitability. Claims to the contrary are unfounded. People are concerned about hospital waiting lists, the condition of roads and the pressure on public services, and they expect the Assembly to address those challenges. Instead, we are debating a motion that appears to be designed by the SDLP to generate political headlines. I can assure the SDLP that it will not even make the news tonight or be discussed around dinner tables.

People want delivery on real, practical solutions to the issues that I outlined, including hospital waiting lists and the condition of roads. Instead, we are debating a motion on a subject that people never raise with me.

Mr Dickson: Methinks that the Member protests too much. [Interruption.]

I rise on behalf of the Alliance Party, and as Deputy Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office. I have followed this issue closely, and raised it on a number of occasions at the Committee and in the House. The concerns in the motion are real and well founded.

Let me start with the vacancy. The post of Commissioner for Public Appointments sat vacant for more than four years between May 2021 and August 2025. During that time, Ministers continued to make appointments to boards and other public bodies. They did so without an independent regulator in post to oversee the process. Therefore, although I welcomed Claire Keatinge's appointment when it came, because it was the right appointment, I was clear that it was long overdue, and I make no apology for saying that again today. The recruitment competition was not even launched until March 2025. What happened during the four-year period before that? The public deserve answers to that question.

The second issue is that it is not enough to simply have a commissioner in post; the system needs to allow them to deliver. Claire Keatinge has already said that the data on who sits on the boards of our public bodies is "poor" — not inadequate or incomplete but "poor" — and we need an explanation of that description. That is the commissioner herself, the person whose entire role is to oversee the process, telling us that she cannot say with total confidence who sits at the table in those bodies and boardrooms. Fewer than half of the applicants complete monitoring forms. We like to talk a great deal in the Chamber about equality, diversity and inclusion, but if we measure only half, we are basically flying blind, or, worse, doing so deliberately. That is a real and fundamental weakness in the system, and it requires immediate attention.

There is a pattern that many Members will recognise, which is the same profiles appearing on boards. That is not a criticism of the individuals involved, many of whom bring considerable experience and a genuine commitment to public service, but it raises the questions of why we keep seeing the same people, who is not getting through and what information is needed to widen the pool. People in business, community organisations and the voluntary sector describe the process as not feeling accessible to them. Many do not know how to apply; others do not even realise that the opportunities exist. If the process itself is a barrier to participation, it is really not open to all. I urge the Executive Office and the commissioner to make public a profile of all the vacancies and to encourage the widest range of people to apply and be considered for the posts.

I make it clear, however, that this is not a blanket criticism of all appointments that were made while the commissioner's post was empty. The concern is that the independent check was not there. We simply have no way of knowing whether appointments were made well or badly during that period, because there was nobody independent to tell people. Ministers who ran open competitions on merit did the right thing, but the public could not verify that, and that is the central problem. We know better than most what happens when public confidence in institutions breaks down. The last thing that any of us wants is to give people another reason to disengage from politics here. Every time there is a reasonable question about whether an appointment was made on merit or connection, public trust takes a hit. We cannot ask people to have faith in the institutions and then hand them reasons not to. The Alliance Party will support the motion. We will keep a keen eye out to make sure that the post does not become another box-ticking exercise.

Mr Butler: As an Ulster Unionist spokesperson, I support the motion, not because we believe that every public appointment made in Northern Ireland is flawed or that those who serve on our public bodies do not bring valuable skills and experience — many do — but because public confidence is what matters. In reality, trust in institutions is hard won and easily lost. Once people begin to believe that who you know matters more than what you know, confidence in government starts to erode. That is why the vacancy in the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments should concern every Member of this House.

For over four years, from 2021 to 2025, Northern Ireland had no independent watchdog overseeing public appointments. During that period, hundreds of appointments were made to public organisation, ALBs and publicly funded boards. Whether the appointments were entirely appropriate is a reasonable question; however, the more important question is why no independent scrutiny was in place to provide the reassurance that the public deserve. Good governance is not about simply doing the right thing; it is about being able to demonstrate that the right thing has been done.

We have all seen appointments generate headlines and public debate. Concerns have been raised about appointments to Invest NI, for instance, and about other public boards and commissioner roles, and questions have been asked about political connections and affiliations.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way. Can he specify what concerns he has about the appointments to Invest NI, given that the process was open and transparent and based on merit? Is it simply that he does not accept that any republican can hold a position in public office?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member. He maybe sees everything through a green and orange lens. That is certainly not something that I do. Those concerns have been well covered in the public debate. [Inaudible.]

Mr Butler: The Member will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Delargy, we will not have that behaviour in the Chamber. We will not. You will have an ability to speak afterwards. Do not barrack from a sedentary position. It is not happening when I am in the Chair.

Mr Butler: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

In many cases, there may be perfectly legitimate explanations. The difficulty is that, when oversight is absent, suspicions fill the vacuum. That is unfair not only on the public but on those who are appointed. People who put themselves forward for public service deserve to have confidence that their appointment is recognised as being based on merit, expertise and ability. They should not find themselves subject to speculation simply because the system lacks the transparency necessary to command public confidence.

The newly appointed commissioner, Claire Keatinge, has spoken openly about the challenges that she has inherited: a significant reduction in independent assessors, limited audit capacity and legislation that has not kept pace with modern governance standards. She described public bodies operating outside the scope of regulation as a significant regulatory gap. We should listen carefully to that warning. Public appointments matter because public bodies matter. These organisations oversee millions of pounds of public expenditure and influence economic development, healthcare, education, infrastructure, environmental protection and public services. The people appointed to lead them should be the very best candidates available, selected through processes that are transparent, robust and beyond reproach.

At a time when trust in politics is under pressure across these islands and beyond, we should not be lowering standards; we should be strengthening them. The debate is not about party politics — certainly not — despite what Members from across the Chamber have said, and it is not about settling old scores. It is about recognising that confidence in public appointments underpins confidence in public institutions. People in Northern Ireland deserve to know that appointments are made because individuals are qualified to do the job, not because they happen to know the right people, belong to the right party or move in the right circles. Merit must always come first; transparency must be expected; and independent oversight must never again be allowed to disappear for four years. If we are serious about rebuilding trust in politics and restoring confidence in public appointments, that is a very good place to start.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Mr Butler.

As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then. The debate will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to speak will be Mr Delargy, so you will get your chance then. [Laughter.]

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): We are shocked and deeply saddened for both the victim of the horrific incident in north Belfast and the people who have been impacted on by the disorder that we have witnessed since. There is absolutely no justification for racism, violence or intimidation. Entire communities have been left frightened and shaken, and the damage done will take time to repair. We recently met members of the racial equality subgroup to listen to and learn from accounts of how the disorder has impacted on people and communities.

Any final framework will be important for setting the longer-term vision and priorities for tackling racial inequalities and race relations issues. The public consultation on the draft framework for race relations has received over 700 responses and a wealth of input through engagement with our minority communities. Officials are analysing responses with a view to revising the draft framework to take on board the feedback received, as is standard with any draft policy. Once the process has completed, the final framework will be subject to Executive agreement.

Mr Blair: I thank the First Minister for that reply and join her in the condemnation of racism.

I ask the First Minister for any available update on how action on race relations can be delivered with consistency across council areas, if councils are to be involved. It appears that there has not always been consistency in the application of good relations policy, particularly in reaching our new communities.

Mrs O'Neill: The Member makes a valid point. Different areas have different challenges, so there needs to be flexibility in the work that we do across councils. We have to first be consistent in having strong messaging against racism and other forms of hate that we see in society.

Our council hubs are stood up at times of crisis, but it is important, as we proceed, to reflect on two things: how to help people in the immediate aftermath of what has happened; and how we can bring forward programmes and work with our councils, for example, on diversionary activity for young people, and ensure that our councils are a bit more consistent. The Member makes a good point, which we will consider in the framework discussions and in the immediate response to what happened last week.

Miss Hargey: First Minister, you touched on your recent meeting with the racial equality subgroup. Do you agree that it is important that the voices of those with lived experience are taken into account when drafting the framework for race relations?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. It is so important that the voices of those with lived experience are taken into account, because, ultimately, the framework has to be about making a difference to their lives and how they live. As I indicated, we met the racial equality subgroup in Stormont in the past few weeks. We have also met people in the community in north Belfast, including representatives from ethnic minority communities, all of whom had been impacted on by the racist attacks that we saw on our streets. I personally wanted to offer my full support to the and to say that we will do everything that we can to weed out the ugliness that we see in pockets across our society.

It is crucial that we hear directly from those ethnic minority communities, because we have to understand what their lives are like and what their experience is and then try to find ways in which to have a more cohesive society and ways in which to support them. It is about ensuring that their voices are heard and reflected in the framework and that we can make a real, positive difference for them and their families, because that is what politics has to be about: making a difference.

I am sure that many Members have engaged with members from the black and ethnic minority community in recent weeks. Some of the stories that I heard were heartbreaking, such as a parent explaining to a six-year-old why people hate them. That is an awful indictment of society, so we all need to be strong in ensuring that we do everything that we can, and I hope that the framework gives us a chance to do so.

Mr Brooks: I echo the sentiments that racism is always wrong, but one of the pressures that are causing frustration is the lack of social and affordable housing, particularly in our most deprived communities. That has been exacerbated by Mears's operation. Sinn Féin has been vocal in criticising the Irish Government for their housing policy, yet the Northern Ireland Communities Minister has repeatedly made it clear that the Finance Minister has not even given him the funding for housing to meet the Programme for Government (PFG) targets. Why is it always one rule for Sinn Féin in the South and another for Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland? Will the First Minister urgently ensure that funding for housing is prioritised?

Mrs O'Neill: I have been critical of Mears also, as has the deputy First Minister. We have raised that as an issue. As the Member knows, immigration policy is not devolved, but we have taken every opportunity to raise concerns with the relevant Ministers.

On housing supply more generally, we are all of one mind here that we need to build more homes. I want to live up to the commitment that we made in the Programme for Government. That is why we are in a battle for the Budget. Despite all the shenanigans in Westminster again today, we are at the bottom of the pile of priorities when it comes to getting a Budget that is fair and reflective of what we need here in order to build more homes.

I stand over the Programme for Government commitment to build more homes. I want to work with all Ministers around the Executive table to ensure that we have the right investment package to allow us to build more homes, to unblock waste water infrastructure connections and to do everything else that makes it possible for us to build homes.

Mr O'Toole: I acknowledge and welcome the First Minister's strong words and her condemnation of the racism that we have seen, but racial minorities in our society want more than words. Frankly, they have seen a lack of urgency from the Executive in finding a practical response. This is now the third year in which we have had racial violence, particularly in this city. In this city, we had an attempted pogrom last week, which included people having to shelter in my office. In welcoming her words, I ask for more specificity on actions to prevent more pogroms — that is what they were — this summer. What action will be taken to resource the police? Will there be a rapid response on housing? What urgent action will be taken on integration? I ask the First please to be specific about what actions will be taken this summer.

Mrs O'Neill: There is not just one answer to it, as the Member knows. We need to come at it from every angle. That could be a policing response initially, for which additional funding was secured. I agree that this is the third year in a row in which we have had that type of racist behaviour on our streets. Likewise, I would describe it as a pogrom. We have to do things in the here and now to respond to what has happened, but we are also looking urgently at what we can do into the future.

If we can predict that it will happen, which is a really uncomfortable thing to say, we have to do everything that we can. That is why, in the first instance, strong political condemnation was required. The PSNI obviously took the lead on the policing response, but the Executive met the racial equality subgroup. We met council hubs. We have continued our engagement with local leaders. We have reinstated the crisis fund and have released funding of £400,000 for the planned interventions programme, which is engaging 1,400 young people. In addition, as I referenced earlier, we have instructed officials to produce proposals for the immediate term and the longer term. We then have the work that we are doing on the framework, which I have just discussed. It will take a combination of all those things to weed out the racism that we see in our society.

Mr Gaston: Updating the draft framework on race relations will make not one bit of difference to the tensions that currently exist in many working-class communities across Northern Ireland. At what point will the Northern Ireland Executive start listening to those communities and do something about the problem of illegal immigration and of people using the porous border to come to Northern Ireland to claim asylum?

Mrs O'Neill: It is important that anybody who holds an elected office be responsible in how they speak. It is really important that they be responsible for the messages that they communicate, because those messages can add to the tensions on our streets. Anybody in the House who does anything to inflame tensions should be ashamed of themselves. Anybody in the House who holds elected office who does not set out the facts as they are and instead gets involved in misinformation and disinformation should also be ashamed of themselves.

We all want to see controlled immigration; we need the Irish Government to work with the British Government and vice versa. There are issues that need to be resolved, and we have raised them with the responsible Ministers because it is not a devolved matter. I encourage the Member, even at this late stage, to do the decent thing and the right thing, because the society that I live in is not reflected in the images that were beamed all around the world. That is not who we are. The vast majority in the Chamber will agree with that.

Mr Carroll: I commend the First Minister on her strong anti-racist statement, which is really important at this time. Obviously, our first concern is for the migrants, asylum seekers and people of colour who are under the threat of violence and are likely to be so over the summer. A lot of people have been financially penalised by the violence over the last two weeks because they have lost their homes and businesses. Have the Executive discussed financially supporting people who have been affected by the racist violence? If not, when will that happen?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, we are looking at a range of things to assist people here and now. Obviously, we will plan for the future, and some of the areas have been identified. The initial response was from the police, but the responsibility to help people has moved to the Department for Communities, and that includes rehousing people who have been displaced from their homes and supporting them in every way that we can. The deputy First Minister and I met the racial equality subgroup last week, and we have taken up the issues raised at the meeting with the Department to turn around a response. We want to respond to those people and get them settled again as quickly as possible. We will leave no stone unturned to support people during this period.

Mrs O'Neill: As I have made clear, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the racially motivated violence that we have seen. It is appalling behaviour that has no place in our society, and it must be called out for what it is: hatred, intimidation and utter thuggery. Last week, we issued an Executive statement condemning all forms of racism, sectarianism and hostility towards individuals from different backgrounds. We also stood alongside the Chief Constable to call for calm and to clearly call out the events of last week for what they were. We maintain a zero-tolerance approach to all forms of hate and intimidation, and we are clear that these actions must stop immediately.

Our refugee integration strategy reinforces our commitment to challenge prejudice, racism and intimidation. The draft framework for race relations, which has just been subject to a public consultation, sets out four proposed outcomes, which include combating racism and race hate crime. We will carefully analyse the consultation responses to inform the final framework. Additionally, the review of Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) is informing the development of a refreshed approach to good relations that will have a continued focus on improving inter- and intra-community relations, including impacting on issues such as sectarian and race hate crime.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

I know that she has referred to this in a previous answer, but will the First Minister agree that those in political leadership must be mindful of the language they use because that is an essential part of tackling racism, sectarianism and xenophobia in our country?

Mrs O'Neill: We cannot say that enough. It is important that the wider community hears the message from elected representatives that we are against racism in all its forms and stand firmly against sectarianism and xenophobia. We tried to convey that message in the initial Executive statement on 10 June, when all Ministers acknowledged the events on the streets had caused significant harm to our communities, spread fear and put innocent lives at risk. The unequivocal collective condemnation was really important. You are right: words are so important at such times and can easily be used to whip up fear, division and tension. In recent weeks, we have seen how quickly the inflammatory language used online can circulate and be picked up by people to inflame already difficult and tense situations. As political leaders, Members of the House have a duty to be mindful of all our public statements and the words we use, particularly in the online space.

Mr Brett: If words are so important, does the First Minister now distance herself from her comments that there was no alternative to the sectarian murderous campaign of the IRA?

Mrs O'Neill: The DUP never miss an opportunity to speak to the gallery. You have asked me that question repeatedly, and my answer will not change. I am sorry for the loss of every life, but I believe that people on your Benches can do likewise.

Ms Bradshaw: First Minister, the refugee integration strategy is now over a year old. When will we see the first annual report? The strategy says that there is the ability to change direction and emphasis based on emerging issues. Can you please outline how the strategy will change in the months ahead to deal with the violence that we have just seen on our streets?

Mrs O'Neill: We cannot look at things in isolation. Whether it is the refugee integration strategy, the framework or the legislation, all those things need to move together and at pace. The strategy and the associated delivery framework acknowledge the importance of successful integration, particularly given that forced migration has increased significantly globally, with more people seeking sanctuary from war and persecution. Officials have worked with partners to progress priority actions for the strategy during the first year of delivery, which focused on the development of community hubs in council areas, some of which I have just mentioned. It is about taking forward a skills and employment survey, which received over 200 responses, to know more about the skills, qualifications and employment experiences of refugees and asylum seekers. It is about ensuring regional immigration advice and information for asylum seekers and refugees and also developing and enhancing communication, which is taken forward by the community cohesion group.

Work is under way to draft the associated annual report, and I can say to the Member that the priority actions for this year will focus on enhancing inclusive learning ESOL provision; improving data sharing and insight for service planning; strengthening coordination of dispersal and move-on processes; and developing a sustainable standardised support model. Task and finish groups have already been established to take forward those priority actions. Clearly, events of the last three summers have to be weaved into the middle of that, and we will have to be adaptable to whatever the circumstances are in our community at this moment in time.

Mr McGlone: First Minister, I recently met representatives from migrant communities, many of whom — in fact, I think the bulk of whom — are involved in the health service, such as doctors, nurses and care workers. Those people expressed concerns to me about their fear and about the lack of safe, welcoming spaces where their families can celebrate their culture. I will emphasise one point: those are people who contribute positively to this community and are not an alien culture — that broad-brush approach that is often said about people who come here to contribute positively to our community. What measures are being taken to create those safe, positive spaces where people can celebrate who they are, their cultures and their identity?

Mrs O'Neill: I agree with the Member about the ugly language that was used to describe some people in our community. Like the Member, I have met many people from the black and ethnic minority community in recent times. I do that on an ongoing basis, but I did so recently given what happened over the last number of weeks. That has affected some nurses who work in our health service. Without their support and without them choosing to be here to work across our health and social care system, we would be in a much more dire place. We are grateful for the contribution that they make to our community. Political leadership starts with the language that we use when it comes to describing our community as a safe and welcoming place. People have to have space to be able to celebrate their culture, and we have to ensure that those are safe spaces. A lot of that will be done really well by our council hubs, because they are very connected to their communities and will understand the needs of certain communities. Whatever we can do, we need to make that space, because we are really good, warm and welcoming people here, and what I saw on our streets in recent weeks does not reflect who we are. I am sure that the Member will concur with that.

Mrs O'Neill: The Executive Office has provided assurance that all relevant vetting took place.

Mr Burrows: That is a rather short and vague answer to a specific question. Thirty-three months ago, the last Police Ombudsman came under criminal investigation for perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. Can you answer this question with a yes or no: did your Department initiate a review of Ms Anderson's vetting, which, at that stage, was developed vetting that gave her access to top-secret material? Did you initiate a review of her vetting: yes or no?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member might not like the answer, but the answer is the answer. All public appointments need to be beyond political interference, and we are very comfortable and content with everything that we did, particularly in the Executive Office. As soon as we became aware of any potential issue in early 2024 through routine and annual security processes, there was, at that stage, no information available that would have triggered formal action under vetting protocols, so we are very comfortable in the action that we took.

Mrs Mason: First Minister, speaking in recent weeks about the Loughinisland massacre, in which six men were murdered while watching Ireland play Italy during the 1994 World Cup at the Heights Bar, former Police Ombudsman Dr Michael Maguire stated:

First Minister, do you agree with his assessment?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I read that article too. His language was very clear, as you have pointed out. He said that he had no worries about pointing out the facts. The facts are the facts. Certainly, Dr Maguire's findings remain his findings, and I have no difficulty in acknowledging his assessment. He was very clear, particularly on the Loughinisland massacre, which you have raised. When it comes to Dr Maguire's reference to arms importation, I believe that significant public-interest questions still remain unanswered, some of which actually persist to this day on the role of Ulster Resistance in providing weapons for the attack. There are lots more questions about how those weapons were brought in and the fact that they were never decommissioned. There are certainly questions to answer.

Mrs Cameron: What progress has been made in the Executive Office to introduce a power to suspend?

Mrs O'Neill: We are the appointing authority for a range of public appointments, including the Police Ombudsman. As legislation currently stands, we have no lawful basis on which to impose the suspension of an office holder who is appointed under the statute unless the statute makes provision. I can say that we have approved plans for legislation to introduce a power to suspend for a number of such appointments. We expect to bring those clauses forward very shortly.

Mrs O'Neill: Sponsorship responsibility for NICCY continues to rest with the Department for Communities under the existing legislative framework, while the First Minister and deputy First Minister retain the joint appointing role. We are content that the current arrangements remain appropriate.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much, First Minister. The recommendations in the review obviously laid out where that would sit better. In light of recent criticisms, by some commentators and politicians in the House, of the Children's Commissioner for robustly defending children's rights, does the First Minister agree that that underlines precisely why the role should be fully independent and free from political pressure, and that the post holder should be able to speak out in the best interests of children and young people and their rights?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I can concur with that. The role of the Children's Commissioner is to be that champion and to speak up very clearly when they feel that they need to and want to offer their view on any of those particularly sensitive areas. I welcome and encourage that ongoing approach from the Children's Commissioner. Initially, you asked whether the Executive Office would take on the role of sponsor Department. In the discussions that we had with DFC, we were content with the arrangements as they currently sit and with DFC being the sponsor Department. We will continue to engage with the commissioner over the weeks, months and years ahead.

Mr Martin: I have written to the Children's Commissioner three times in as many weeks regarding his public position on raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) to 16. I asked Mr Quinn questions such as, if prosecution is excluded because the male perpetrator is under 16 years old, how he proposes to recognise the heinous crime of rape on female victims who are children. His first reply directed me to an external website to explain his policy position. In his second, he replied with three sentences. Is it acceptable for the Children's Commissioner to refuse to answer an MLA's questions?

Mrs O'Neill: I cannot comment on your correspondence with the commissioner. However, any information that helps MLAs to make a decision on those important issues is to be welcomed. Where I absolutely disagree with you is on the petition of concern. It was not the way to deal with this issue.

Ms Murphy: Does the First Minister agree that having the voices of our young people reflected in government policy is a vital aspect in delivering for them?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do, because politics has to deliver for everybody in society. It has to deliver for our young people. They are the future leaders of our society and have every right to have their voices heard in decision-making processes that impact their lives. I have to say that, like many people in the House, I am inspired by so many of the young people whom I get the chance to meet at different events, schools and community centres and in the wider community. It is really important that we focus on empowering our young people. Empowering our young people to vote will encourage a lifetime of political engagement. Certainly, it would strengthen our democracy. With two elections scheduled here in 2027, our focus now must be on ensuring that all 16-year-olds can take part. So many of the issues that will affect them are shaped here in the Chamber, so the Chamber should be more reflective of the community, whether that is young people or people from the black and ethnic minority community. We are not reflective of wider society, and more effort could be made to ensure that we reflect the community that we serve.

Mrs O'Neill: Significant progress has been made at the Ebrington site, which has been transformed into an economic and cultural asset for the city and the wider north-west. Executive investment of over £40 million has helped to leverage a further £40 million in private-sector investment. As a result, Ebrington now supports more than 360 jobs, and buildings are now leased or under agreement for lease. That demonstrates the strong demand at the site and the success of developments such as Ebrington Plaza, which provides high-quality office accommodation for employers including Alchemy Technology Services, Ernst & Young, and Danske Bank. Building on that progress, the Executive Office is contributing £3·3 million towards the Derry on the North Atlantic Museum, which is due to open in 2027 and will further enhance Ebrington’s role as a heritage and tourism destination.

Ebrington is also continuing to develop as a vibrant events space. Following a successful programme of around 40 events last year, work is under way to deliver a further programme of music, sporting and community events over 2026-27. Strong demand is evident, with major performances such as the upcoming Kingfishr concert already sold out and visitor numbers remaining high. In alignment with the Executive’s priority of building a strong, regionally balanced economy, our efforts are focused on strengthening the social, economic and tourism potential of the Ebrington site.

Mr Delargy: I thank the First Minister for her answer. Unfortunately, I do not have a ticket to that event. The First Minister has attended many events in Ebrington with me. It is great to see the progress over the past number of years in Ebrington. As you mentioned in your answer, £40 million leveraging a further £40 million and 360 jobs is a really good news story. How do you see the future of Ebrington, and how does that align with developing a competitive and connected north-west region?

Mrs O'Neill: The progress stands on its own right when it comes to what has been achieved. Then, you just have to look about for how much more you can do to build on that. It is a good news success story. It ticks the box on regional balance and ensures that the north-west gets its fair share of investment.

I commend all those involved. It has been a real effort by the public sector and private sector to achieve the investment. The effort is creating such strong conditions for long-term growth and prosperity. We have the city deal, the Inclusive Future Fund and all the different projects, including those that support the City of Derry Airport. Hopefully, we will get a way through on the A5 in the upcoming court case, and we have the completed A6 improvements and the Magee expansion. The investment in the north-west has been substantial over the past number of years, and I look forward to building on that in the time ahead.

Mrs O'Neill: We are determined to improve the process to ensure that more of our capital projects are delivered on time and on budget. Two work streams are under way that will help to shape decision-making on the best way forward. First, TEO and Strategic Investment Board (SIB) officials are continuing to address the recommendations from the recent review of SIB, including the provision of greater strategic support to the Executive. Secondly, the enabling action plan associated with the draft investment strategy is a key element of tackling the underlying issues that contribute to delays in infrastructure delivery.

There are a number of actions, including the development of an infrastructure needs assessment. We will use the findings from those work streams as part of our considerations on the best way forward. Ultimately, obviously, decisions will be a matter for the Executive.

Mr McReynolds: First Minister, the Institute of Directors and the Construction Employers Federation are still calling for the establishment of an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission some five years after it appeared on page 27 of the previous Executive's COVID recovery plan, to which you were a co-signatory. It was also welcomed by previous Infrastructure Minister Nichola Mallon. What has contributed to the delay, and why are departmental responses on the topic becoming shorter rather than longer?

Mrs O'Neill: I can say to the Member that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that we can deliver our capital projects better, on time and on budget. We saw some of the difficulties in the past, with projects running way over time, often because of legal challenges and cases. We need to find ways to ensure that we can deliver our projects better.

An infrastructure commission is one potential part of that picture. It is one idea that has been advanced and that we have not ruled out. We have asked officials to consider more widely how we can improve the way that we deliver infrastructure projects, and an enabling action plan will be a key element of that.

Infrastructure commissions tend to focus on future needs rather than the practicalities of delivery in the here and now, so what is the right balance in how we proceed? Again, if we are going to establish another body, that will have to come to the Executive for decision. We have to do the other legs of work in order to inform a final decision.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member knows, we are potentially about to get our seventh British Prime Minister in a decade that can be defined only by chaos and by Governments who, whether they were led by the Tories or the Labour Party, care less about the people here, care less about investment in our public services and care less about getting people through the cost-of-living crisis and who care more about prioritising defence over public services and care more about ignoring the interests of people here. As Keir Starmer announces his intention to leave office, he is yet to fulfil a request from the deputy First Minister and me to meet on those very things and discuss how we will support people through the cost-of-living crisis and the fact that we are underfunded compared with Scotland and Wales. What we ask for is fair and right, so, whilst we have this constitutional arrangement, I will engage with whoever replaces Keir Starmer to fight the good fight for the people here.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, you might get a meeting with Keir Starmer now, because I think that his diary is about to become a lot freer in the days to come. However, it comes back to the point about taking responsibility here. I asked you whether the correct response to chaos in London was your party and the DUP visiting chaos in Northern Ireland by resigning your offices, and you did not answer that. I agree that we cannot expect UK Governments, be they Labour, Tory or, indeed, Reform — whoever they might be — to prioritise people here. Does that not argue that we should take responsibility? To that end, when will we pass a multi-year Budget, and when will the Executive bring forward proposals to avoid a crushing 5% cut later this summer?

Mrs O'Neill: To be quite frank, I think that the Opposition are being reckless in providing illustrations as part of the Budget discussion that are not reflective of reality. I believe that the Finance Minister also said that. Whilst you might be happy for us to accept the crumbs from the table and divvy up what we get, I will keep fighting for people here, because we deserve fairness, a good Budget, investment in our public services and support for people to get through the cost-of-living crisis. That is why we are working intensively to get a Budget, but here we go again with the drama of Westminster, and, once again, we will be at the bottom of the priority list. That tells me, you and everybody out there that our future is best served in our own hands. Let us work together on that.

Mrs O'Neill: It is the latest chapter in a political psychodrama. It has been playing out in Westminster for forever and a day but particularly over the past 10 years. Tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of Brexit, which inflicted so much damage to the wider economy. We are now on the verge of having a seventh British Prime Minister in 10 years. I think of the chaos and instability that comes from our fortunes being tied to Westminster and people who will never prioritise the needs or interests of people here, particularly given their track record, which tells you that they prioritise a small number of the English elite over and above everybody else. Regardless of who inherits the keys of Downing Street, the Government will not behave any differently or afford more respect to our public. They will continue to treat us as second-class citizens. That is why it is time to take the future into our hands.

Mrs Mason: First Minister, based on everything that you said, do you agree that the best solution to the chaos is a new and united Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, of course I do. Those events again underline a simple reality, which is that the people of Ireland cannot continue to have their future determined by political turmoil in London. It is as simple as that. More and more people are alert to that, and the fundamental issue is bigger than any one British Prime Minister. If we look at the track record of the previous six Prime Ministers, each and every one of them behaved in exactly the same way, which resulted in instability and uncertainty. They prioritised internal party political battles over the needs of people. There was Brexit, austerity and other damaging policies time after time, all of which ignored the needs and interests of people here. A future free from those damaging policies is something that we should grasp, work on and plan for together. Everybody in the Chamber has a stake in our future, so, together, let us do something better for all our people. Let us find a way in which to ensure that everybody, in all their identities, is respected and valued in a new Ireland within Europe.

Mrs O'Neill: Given that the Member is not on the Executive, I am surprised by her knowledge of Executive papers, which have to go through a process. I want investment in special educational needs. It was the Minister of Finance who enabled her Minister to bring forward the childcare investment package, because we budgeted for that. I want us to go further and faster to do more to support all our children, but particularly those who have additional needs. I want their families to benefit from our childcare package. We should therefore work together to do all those things. We are engaged in Budget discussions to try to secure additional funding in order to do them.

Ms Forsythe: I agree with the First Minister that childcare is a key Programme for Government priority. On that note, will she consider approving the Department for Education's urgent procedure paper on the funding of early years education and childcare in order to avoid cuts being made to a project that has been an Executive priority?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, that is why we are in a battle for additional funding. We wish that we had much more funding to invest in projects. That is why we need to get an adequate Budget. We need to get our fair share, and that is why we need to continue the discussions. I want us to be able to do more, be that investment in social housing, in childcare, in our health service or in infrastructure across the board, you name it. We have many priorities, but we need to get an adequate Budget. That is where the political battle remains in taking on the Treasury.

Mrs O'Neill: I do not have any specific update on that matter. We have a base in Beijing, and we try to look for investment opportunities. If the Member has a specific question, I will be happy to answer it.

Mr Chambers: Do the reports of alleged human rights abuses of their own citizens by the Chinese authorities present any ethical challenges in our discussions with them?

Mrs O'Neill: We use all opportunities to raise international breaches of human rights standards with Chinese officials or anybody else with whom we engage. It is really important that we do that when it comes to international engagement. I can therefore assure the Member that that is always the case.

Mrs O'Neill: We meet many stakeholders, and we will meet anyone who wants to meet us to talk about the problem that we have. The Member is absolutely correct to say that it is an epidemic. We will not be found wanting, because ending violence against women and girls is an Executive Office priority. We have put the funding behind the strategy, which is being rolled out very effectively, I have to say, across all our communities, with excellent projects. Just last week, in partnership with Ulster University, we launched the Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes coercive control campaign. We are up for talking to anyone who has a role to play in speaking to society more widely about the problem that we have.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you for the response, First Minister. Will you outline the further steps that you will take to address the cultural drivers of misogyny identified by the Church leaders in recent reviews to ensure greater accountability and coordination in tackling gender-based violence?

Mrs O'Neill: Every organisation has its homework to do on cultures and behaviours within its institution. They have a role to play, but we have a wider societal problem, as you have acknowledged. The fact that we have such high levels of violence against women and girls scares the life out of many women. However, the focus of our strategy right now is on the preventative work. That is really important. We have to speak to young boys. We need to shape behaviours and attitudes when they are much younger. We need to work with young people more generally on how they can identify what good, positive relationships look like, as opposed to bad, unhealthy ones. It is about understanding what coercive control looks like. We are focused on a raft of areas of work. If we are to successfully tackle the levels of violence across our society, it will take everybody facing into that wind together. All of us will have a role to play, whether that is in political life and work, community and civic life or cultural life.

Mrs O'Neill: I am sure that, when the person is appointed, they go through a rigorous public appointment process. No doubt, it was the same for that individual. I will not get into point-scoring from your Benches against the Children's Commissioner. It is not for me to say. Of course, anybody who holds an office needs to be accurate in their reporting and answering of questions.

Mr Martin: I thank the First Minister for her answer. I will ask her one of the edited questions that stumped the Children's Commissioner. Given that we are struggling to deal with violence against women and girls, what message does it send out that her party supports a position of not prosecuting 13-year-old boys for attempted rape?

Mrs O'Neill: That is a misrepresentation. Last week, your party absolutely wrongly deployed the petition of concern on that issue because you are afraid of democracy. You were afraid of that debate being held in the Chamber, where we discussed all those things, including exemptions for serious crime. The fact that you had to browbeat the UUP into getting on board with your petition of concern shows that you were afraid of losing the argument. This is democracy in action. This is where you have the debate. This is where you vote, not hide behind the petition of concern.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I have been listening to a lot about it on the radio. The buzz and excitement are starting to build for the fleadh coming to Belfast for the first time. It is a huge opportunity for the city. It will celebrate the best of us and show a really positive image, in direct contrast to what we have seen over recent weeks. The preparations are well under way for what will be a hugely exciting summer, with hundreds of thousands of people coming from all across the island and further afield to celebrate Irish music, culture and heritage. They will get to see the best of Belfast, and I really look forward to that being the case. It will be a massive economic booster as well. There will be a great legacy for the city because some people will come for the first time, will get to see us and see how warm and welcoming we are and will, no doubt, return.

Ms Flynn: Go raibh míle maith agat,

First Minister, I appreciate that answer. You mentioned the fact that so many visitors will come from all over the world for the fleadh. Do you agree that the festival is not only a huge cultural achievement for Belfast but a huge economic driver?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do. As I said, as well as its immense cultural value, the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann will bring upwards of 650,000 visitors, which is an absolutely massive number. That is huge on anybody's scale. The fact that they will all be in the city, enjoying the festival, has been predicted to be worth about £60 million to the local economy. That is huge. It will be a massive boost for businesses and tourism and a real chance to showcase Belfast to the rest of the world in the positive light that we want to be seen in.

Belfast is a place that is vibrant and buzzing. It is a city that is very much on the turn. I think that, if we all row in behind the fleadh, it will leave a lasting social, cultural and economic legacy for all of us. Well done to all those who have put in all the hard yards to get us to this point. I look forward to the summer.

Mr Speaker: Briefly, please, Mr Kearney.

Mrs O'Neill: I absolutely agree: it has been a catastrophic failure and an unmitigated disaster. The people whose cry was, "Whatever it takes, let's just get it done" should hang their head in shame today. The fact is that we now have a broken Brexit Britain. We have the potential for a Farage or a Boris Johnson-type character to come to the fore. It is absolutely ridiculous. It has been an unmitigated disaster for jobs, businesses and our economy, and has led to a very toxic atmosphere out there in society.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Protections around strike action and action short of strike are firmly established in statute for all workers, including teachers. If the Member is referring to the Education Inspections Bill, let me be clear: nothing in that legislation removes or undermines that right. However, there must be a clear distinction between legitimate industrial action and the obstruction of a statutory independent process that is designed to safeguard vulnerable children and uphold their right to a good education. The Bill simply ensures that school inspections can proceed during periods of industrial action by requiring cooperation with that essential process. In no other jurisdiction across the United Kingdom or Ireland is it acceptable for inspections to be obstructed as part of industrial action. It is neither reasonable nor defensible. The Bill closes a critical gap in our legislation and removes any ambiguity by making clear the absolute necessity of cooperation.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, in broader terms, we are now two and a half years into your stint as Education Minister. Whether it is on TransformED, the curriculum review, workload — you have done work in that area — or the inspections regime that has just been announced, albeit you have told the Chamber that there is no real reason for the unions to be up in arms about it, why do you think that so many trade unions have become so frustrated with you during your time in office? There must be a reason. Are they all imagining it? Those are serious professionals who want to get the job done. Like you, they care about education and the future of our children. Why have they all fallen out with you?

Mr Givan: That is not a fair characterisation. In fact, I was with Justin McCamphill, the leader of NASUWT, at the launch of the curriculum reform, at which he commended me for it and said that he thought that it was good. I have sat in many a meeting with trade union representatives during which they have said, "This is a good initiative. This is something that we support". There will be further announcements over the next number of weeks through which I will respond to trade union representations to me. There is a very good relationship in that regard. In fact, I have delivered the biggest increases of any Education Minister for our teachers and classroom assistants during my time in office. I have put up the pay for new teachers from £23,000 to £32,000. I have put up teachers' pay by double figures in percentage increases. We have been able to resolve outstanding disputes on pay. There are ongoing issues around workload. We had a panel that made 27 recommendations. I will continue to make progress in delivering on those.

I say this to Mr O'Toole: get out and engage with the principals in your constituency who have attended many of those events and are very encouraged and excited about the excellent work that is happening to transform our education system. It is long overdue.

Mrs Mason: Does the Minister accept that his Bill targeting teachers is dead in the water, and that he will not get away with sanctioning teachers for taking part in what is lawful action?

Mr Givan: If only the Member asked me questions in the same way in which she asked the First Minister questions earlier. She was so pleasant and nice during that Question Time, but, when it comes to me, she is like a different Member. [Laughter.]

Once the Bill goes through its due consideration processes, how the Assembly wishes to vote on it is entirely a matter for it. We should never compromise on children's safety. I listened carefully to the Minister of Health this morning in response to what has happened in Muckamore. He said:

I am putting in place proper processes to ensure that, when it comes to the inspection of our schools, which includes children's safeguarding, we do not compromise. The Member might be prepared to compromise on it, but that is a price that I am not prepared to pay.

Mr Martin: I will continue on that theme. What do you say, Minister, to those who argue that safeguarding continued and was protected in the inspection regime during action short of strike?

Mr Givan: I have heard that put forward by some, and it is wrong to claim that inspection processes were not impacted on by action short of strike, including when it came to issues around safeguarding. In the 2022-23 academic year, several years after protracted industrial action commenced, the unions agreed to include exemptions that permitted members to cooperate in the event of "legitimate matters of safeguarding". However, to suggest that that meant that safeguarding was unaffected overlooks a key point. Unannounced safeguarding inspections are only requested when a safeguarding concern or an allegation has already been raised. Routine inspections, essential for identifying safeguarding issues that have gone unnoticed or where child protection arrangements require improvement, were still obstructed.

The Education and Training Inspectorate cannot fully evaluate child protection arrangements without a secure evidence base. Inspection of safeguarding does not equate to the scrutiny of the safeguarding pro forma or policy. The evidence base included distribution of surveys to gain individual views of parents and pupils, in particular where pupils feel safe at school; discussions with groups of pupils; meetings with the designated teacher and school safeguarding team; discussions with all staff to ascertain awareness and understanding of school policies and procedures; and the observation of ethos, culture, interactions and relationships in the classroom. Those things were all affected during action short of strike, so I say again to Members: are we prepared to compromise when it comes to ensuring the highest possible standards in our schools and the protection of our children and young people? I am not prepared to compromise on that.

Mr Givan: A business case to identify the preferred option to be taken forward in design is being prepared by the Education Authority. It is anticipated that that business case will be lodged with the Department for consideration in the coming weeks. Should business case approval be granted, design work on the preferred option will be progressed by the appointed integrated consultant team, and a project programme will be developed.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate the fact that you are announcing progress on King's Park Primary School, but it is one of the larger schools in the Lurgan area and is a very vibrant school, and many people are a little perturbed by the length of time that these processes take. Will you agree to meet EA, the school and me to discuss what can be done to try to progress the matter so that we can move through the business case and into more formal design?

Mr Givan: I am happy to facilitate the request from the Member for Upper Bann. Part of the frustration that King's Park and many schools face is the very lengthy list of capital works programmes and school enhancement programmes to be taken forward. Those could be taken forward with a much greater allocation of capital funding to my Department. I continue to make the case for that capital funding. The draft Budget that was consulted on showed an inadequate allocation that Sinn Féin had put out into the public domain. One of the reasons why I do not support the draft Budget is that I am standing with our schools to get more funding, but I will be happy to meet the Member on that particular school.

Miss McAllister: Not too far from King's Park Primary School is Our Lady Of Lourdes Primary School, Park Lodge in North Belfast. That school had its funding approved for its capital build of 12 additional classrooms. Given that there was a three-year delay between the previous approval and this funding release, can the Minister assure the House, including my North Belfast MLA colleagues and me, that there will not be even further delay to getting the groundwork started and having the classrooms completed?

Mr Givan: I am happy to give the Member a written update on that. It was not connected to the substantive question, so I do not have any information on it.

Mr Givan: "Direct award payments" is not a recognised term. The Member might mean "direct award contracts". If so, those are permitted in limited and clearly defined circumstances and where there are compelling reasons why competition is not possible or appropriate.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

I note the Minister's comments and take them on board. Does the Minister agree that handing over £150,000 to English consultants is not an intelligent use of his limited departmental financial resources?

Mr Givan: If there have been any direct award contracts, a process will have been followed. That is normal practice. The process includes a determination of whether it is value for money. If the Member is referring to a particular example with those details, I will be happy to look into it and provide any assurances that he wants. This is a normal practice, but it is clearly governed by criteria to ensure that the issues that he raises are addressed in the consideration before it is signed off.

Mr Mathison: You will be aware of the direct award contract that has been made to InnerDrive for teacher continuing professional development (CPD). Will the Minister outline the reason why it was felt that it was not worth going out to any other company to run a proper procurement process? It seems odd that only one company could be designated as being capable of providing CPD to our teachers in Northern Ireland.

Mr Givan: In my earlier response, I explained that there will be circumstances that justify such an approach, where it is appropriate. It is important that we move forward, particularly when it comes to the likes of professional development — that has not been addressed for many years — to support our teaching profession. The approach that was taken in that instance was subject to the appropriate checks being carried out before it was signed off. There will be other examples not only in my Department but in others where direct award contracts have been secured. It is not unusual for that to be the case when it comes to trying to take forward issues, particularly where it is deemed to be the appropriate way of doing things.

Mr Givan: During the development of the draft early learning and childcare strategy, I considered the potential of fee-capping arrangements as one possible approach to supporting families with the costs of childcare. However, it is important to recognise that around 80% of day-care provision in Northern Ireland is privately operated, and there is no legislative framework for direct government control of childcare fees.

Experience from other jurisdictions demonstrates that successful fee-capping arrangements are not simply a matter of imposing limits on prices. They are typically underpinned by substantial levels of public funding and contractual arrangements with providers to compensate them for restrictions on the fees that they can charge parents. Any comparable approach in Northern Ireland would require careful consideration of the legislative, regulatory and additional financial implications. Therefore, in the absence of significant additional funding required by the Executive, I did not propose to introduce a fee-capping model at this stage. However, while fee capping is not currently proposed in the draft strategy, I recognise the importance of ensuring that childcare remains affordable for families. I have therefore included actions relating to fee publication and transparency to strengthen market transparency, support informed parental choice and improve our understanding of childcare costs and fee trends across the sector.

As we develop the final early learning and childcare strategy, we will continue to monitor childcare affordability, costs and wider market developments. We will actively consider and bring forward additional measures, including estimated costs, informed by ongoing engagement with parents, providers, experts and the wider sector.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, do you accept that if childcare providers are receiving large sums of public money, parents, at the very least, should be able to expect a cap on costs and more affordable prices? More affordable childcare is the lens that many, many parents have to look through.

Mr Givan: The Member is right when she says that parents have an expectation that the subsidy will have a meaningful impact on fees. I hope to publish the findings of the consultation on the childcare strategy in the next number of days and to report on that and the next steps. The consultation indicated that we want to move the subsidy from 15% to 50% over time, subject to the finance being available to allow us to do that, and it is important that parents feel the benefit of it. I accept that all providers have faced the same increase in the cost of living and the increase in National Insurance contributions that the Westminster Government brought in. Those have had an impact, so providers will want to pass on some of those costs. We need to be sure, however, that the subsidy is not increasing costs because they believe that it is now a subsidised payment.

The Republic of Ireland, which introduced the capping of fees, provides over €500 million to childcare providers as part of their core funding. Capping fees involves providing a core subsidy to providers, which facilitates the capping of fees. It cannot be a case of fees being capped and the value of the 15% not being eroded. Providers will then need a direct subsidy, which will come from Stormont, so, ultimately, the taxpayer will still have to pay.

The Member rightly raises issues that we are considering. Better transparency will help us to hold providers to greater accountability.

Mrs Cameron: Will the Minister provide more detail on the work undertaken to assess fee-capping arrangements?

Mr Givan: A key lesson on fee-capping arrangements in other jurisdictions is that they were supported by a detailed understanding of the cost of providing quality childcare. The Republic of Ireland, England and Scotland commissioned independent research to establish the cost of delivering quality childcare, and that informed the provider funding models. In Northern Ireland, we do not currently have the equivalent evidence base. We have information on fees charged by providers but no information on the underlying costs associated with delivering high-quality childcare through the mixed model of provision in Northern Ireland. Understanding those costs would help to inform discussion on a fee-capping arrangement. Clear levels of support go directly to providers in that circumstance, and that is something that the Executive do not have the funding to do. We need to support hard-working families when it comes to childcare costs, which we have been doing, but of course we could do more.

Mrs Guy: Minister, according to information that your Department provided to me in response to a question for written answer, daily childcare fees in day care range from £31 to £90. When will you introduce protections as part of the childcare subsidy scheme against fees that could be deemed to be unfairly high?

Mr Givan: There is an element of regulation and how that can be effective or the way in which parents will choose whom they want to care for their children. If a provider is doing it for significantly less than others, I suspect that those in the expensive range will not be able to maintain their services. There is, therefore, an element of the market regulating itself, but I am not averse to considering ways in which we can help to control the situation that many parents are having to navigate with childcare providers.

Key for me was rapidly getting a scheme in place. We attached it to the UK tax-free system, which provided integrity for those who were eligible. We rolled that scheme out at pace, and it has delivered tens of millions of pounds of savings and benefits for families. When inflation occurred, we increased the cap so that the value of the 15% also increased. Members have rightly raised issues about ensuring accountability regarding costs. We are alert to that, but there are also trade-offs when it comes to a highly-regulated market. There is the setting up of the system to carry out the regulation, the costs associated with that regulation and the need for a cost-benefit analysis of the most effective way to support families that need the support.

Mr Givan: At the end of April 2026, I published the workload action plan. That plan translates the recommendations of the independent review panel into practical, deliverable and time-bound measures. The plan addresses each of the 27 recommendations either fully or in part with clear ownership, governance arrangements and timescales for delivery. Importantly, the plan also includes a number of significant measures that go beyond the panel's recommendations, including the provision of additional administrative support for schools and the full roll-out of generative AI to streamline routine tasks.

Members will be aware that the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC) unions have notified the Department that they are in dispute over the workload action plan. The Department remains committed to resolving the dispute through meaningful and constructive dialogue, and there will be ongoing discussions between the Department, management side of the Teachers' Negotiating Committee (TNC) and the NITC trade unions in an attempt to reach a resolution and thus avoid industrial action. We are also engaging the services of the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) to help with the conciliation process.

While the ongoing dispute may result in delays to certain aspects of delivery in the action plan, reducing the workload of teachers and school leaders remains a priority. In parallel with further engagement with the NITC, we will therefore continue to progress the actions in the published plan where implementation is possible in the current circumstances.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. In April, the Assembly passed a motion calling for an urgent review of special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) workload specifically, yet, in response to a question for written answer from my colleague Nick Mathison, you said that the Department was not committed to any formal review process. How can you reassure SENCOs that you are committed to tackling the challenges that we face other than by such a formal process?

Mr Givan: We very much want to support SENCOs. That is part of the wider SEN reform approach that we need to see in our schools. The Member, like other Members, will know that demand is increasing, yet we have a finite resource available to help. One of the recommendations of the report suggested that wider administrative support be provided to schools. Such an administrative function would assist the whole school rather than one element of the school exclusively, and that could help reduce the burden of the paperwork that can be involved.

We need to ask, however, what information that is being sought is absolutely essential and whether that is appropriate and proportionate to enable effective decisions to be taken. I want to be in a situation in which we do not need our young people to come through a statementing process because their needs have been identified in early years. I want schools to have the resource available to make that intervention, which can be provided not just to children with statements but to those who have additional needs but have not been through a statementing process. Reform is therefore required, but one of the 27 recommendations seeks to address schools' administrative workload by providing support to enable that burden to be lifted.

Mr Sheehan: There is a clear disconnect between what the Minister says and the reality of what teachers are dealing with. Will he explain why, if his plans and proposals are working, teachers are being balloted on industrial action on the issue of workload?

Mr Givan: It is an area that I have had to navigate, as have many previous Education Ministers. Industrial relations is an area that needs ongoing work. I have outlined how we can address it, but I come back to saying that, when workload was undefined, trade unions struggled to specify the challenge. They said so to me, and I replied, "Let's set up a three-member panel, and you appoint one of your members to sit on it", which they did. A senior industrial trade unionist was their representative. The panel made 27 recommendations that I am seeking to take forward, yet there is still a dispute. We need to work through the implementation of the recommendations, some of which will be impacted on if industrial action is invoked and we cannot then reform some of the burdens.

I very much want to work with the trade unions. That is why, tomorrow, our team will sit down with the Labour Relations Agency as part of the conciliation process. I have reached out to the LRA and asked it to engage — I have gone through the process and am therefore seeking external support — and we have until the end of the summer to make further progress. I hope that we will be able to do so, as that will ultimately be in the interests of everybody involved.

Mr Brooks: The list of actions that the Minister has given shows his commitment to reducing workload. How will the roll-out of TransformED assist in that?

Mr Givan: TransformED has many strands. Many of those who were involved in developing TransformED and, in particular, the curriculum are local practitioners. I thank the more than 70 local teachers from different sectors who sat on the 13 subject working groups. The curriculum is now out for consultation, providing an opportunity for people to engage in the process.

The outworking of the curriculum aspect of TransformED will be a reduction in teacher workload. The current curriculum is vague, high-level and abstract and requires a lot of interpretation for the teaching profession to deliver lesson plans. The new curriculum, however, will have greater specific content. We are also seeking to develop materials that align with the teaching aspect. It will help teachers to manage their workload and will be a more effective way of taking forward the curriculum.

It will also help with the processes for assessment and qualifications. We have many subjects that require a heavy workload for controlled assessment. That places a burden on a lot of teachers. As we move forward, assessment processes will be aligned with qualification reform. That will free up our teachers to do what they do best and what they went into the profession to do: teach, without being encumbered by ineffective curriculum, assessment and qualification processes that have contributed significantly to their workload.

Mr Burrows: Does the Minister agree that the issue of workload is connected in part to teachers having to deal with a small number of disruptive pupils who cause a disproportionate amount of disruption, creating a lot more work for teachers, and that it is vital that there is the capability to swiftly and firmly deal with the small minority of disruptive pupils in our schools?

Mr Givan: The trade unions have also raised with me the issue of managing behaviour in our schools and the different practices that exist across Northern Ireland. That is why we will move forward with an independent review of behaviour-management practices in our schools. I hope to make progress on that in due course. We need to make sure that there is an effective way of managing behaviour. Ultimately, there will be disruption, but you have to minimise that. You cannot allow the overwhelming majority to be negatively impacted on by disruption.

I encourage Members to engage with the schools that piloted mobile phone-inhibiting devices. I am so passionate about removing mobile phones from our schools because the schools that operated and consistently applied the technology have seen a notable decrease in poor behaviour, an increase in academic output and a decrease in wider community engagement. That is because you no longer have messages going from students at school to their parents and the parents coming unannounced to the school, which can lead to tensions at entry points to the school, and you do not have videos and photographs being taken that end up on Facebook, which then creates further tension. All of that has to be managed by our schools. That has been one small but impactful measure that we have taken forward. I await the independent evaluation by King's College of the policy that I wanted to introduce.

Mr Givan: Classroom assistants are a highly valued part of the education workforce, and their contribution will remain essential, irrespective of any new model of support that is provided for children and young people who have a statement of special educational needs.

Recognising the urgent need to address the challenges faced by that workforce and the ongoing uncertainty associated with temporary contracts in particular, my officials are working closely with their EA colleagues to ensure that classroom assistants are given proper recognition through improved employment arrangements, clearer role definitions and meaningful pathways for development and progression.

A dedicated work stream in the enhanced support model has been established to focus on exploring a new employment model for classroom assistants, enabling them to develop specialist expertise in special educational needs categories, with appropriate reward for those enhanced skills. To support that work, the Department has commissioned Ulster University to examine best practice in employment models and career progression across other jurisdictions. In the new academic year, it will also engage directly with school staff to better understand the skills and expertise required to meet the needs of their children.

Ongoing engagement with classroom assistants is a key part of the process. During the public consultation on the enhanced support model, the EA held targeted sessions to hear directly from classroom assistants and better understand how their roles may evolve.

Mr Baker: Minister, classroom assistants play a vital role in our classrooms. They are deeply concerned about the direction of travel and are worried about children losing out on their one-to-one support. It will be in your actions, not your words that you are judged. You will have heard, even in what has been said today, that kids are being placed in the wrong settings and that they are then blamed and end up on reduced timetables. Will you give a cast-iron guarantee that no child who is entitled to one-to-one support will lose out under your plans?

Mr Givan: The EA's enhanced support model has been out for consultation. The Member's party is the largest political grouping on the Education Authority, so his party supported the model's being consulted on. If we retain the current provision, which is not working and is failing children, we will consign many more young people to an education system that does not work. The EA is piloting the enhanced support model in 150 schools that have already made changes whereby they have general support to the whole school.

Not one classroom assistant will be made redundant as a result of the changes — not one. They will, however, lead to a more effective way of deploying that resource to the whole school and getting general support, with specialisms involved, so that children who do not have a statement can get the appropriate support. We are trying to make changes in the context of financial constrictions. The Member's ministerial colleague challenges me all the time on financial expenditure in the Department of Education and on what changes are being made. There is no more money coming from the Member's Minister. If Sinn Féin is going to provide the funding, I would appreciate the Member getting confirmation of that from his Minister.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr Givan: That is exactly why there is a 16-week consultation period, rather than the normal 12 weeks or the minimum eight weeks; to allow the public and teaching profession to very much engage in that curriculum, which I commend to all Members. The curriculum was developed through 13 subject working groups: over 70 local teachers, some of whom, I am sure, were from the Member's constituency, from every sector, including controlled, Catholic maintained, integrated, all put forward their support to develop the new curriculum. It is their curriculum, not mine. I was not involved in any of the of the subject working groups or the drafting of any of the curriculum, so there was no political involvement on my part. I therefore commend what we are trying to achieve with the curriculum to the profession and to wider society.

The Member is right that the most recent curriculum was published over 20 years ago. It was the wrong curriculum. We took a wrong turn. It was not an effective way of trying to impart the knowledge that we believe ought to be given to our young people. That is why Northern Ireland has gone down in all international measurements. We have poorer outcomes compared with many other countries, not least the Republic of Ireland, where pupils outperform pupils from Northern Ireland in nearly every area. Either we retain the status quo, which is failing, or make the change. The change has been enabled by the teaching professionals who were involved in drafting the curriculum, and now it is open to everybody to present their views before being finalised.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister. Minister, you said that you want the new curriculum to be rich and filled with powerful knowledge. I am really concerned about the fact that the mandatory period for learning languages is only three years in Northern Ireland. I have a profound fear that the failure to make modern languages a universal entitlement will mean that children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds will be less likely to have that knowledge and skill set. Is that something that you will seek to reform through the consultation period? Will you take that into account?

Mr Givan: It is important to say that what has been produced is the curriculum framework. It is not the detailed school-level curriculum; it is a statutory minimum requirement to be taught in all our schools. It is the minimum content. One of the issues that people have brought to me — Members have talked about this — is teacher workload. Ultimately, schools will be able to teach further areas of the curriculum. They will not be limited to what I have produced. That will be a minimum, as opposed to a maximum.

On the issue around modern languages, I have every sympathy for the Member. The first time that I tried to learn French was in post-primary school when I went into year 8. I had never tried it in my primary school. Maybe if I had had that opportunity and had been exposed to that language in primary school, I would have performed a lot better. I will not embarrass myself by letting her know what I got in that particular exam. When it comes to primary-school teaching, we do not have teachers coming through at primary-school level who are qualified experts in foreign languages. That is part of the reason why that recommendation has not been taken forward. I wish to see modern languages being taught in our primary schools, but the reason why that has not been taken forward is partly workforce connected. However, we should aspire to do that.

Mr Givan: I will have to come back to the Member on that one. It is not something that has been brought to my attention until now.

Miss McAllister: It has been brought to the attention of Education Committee and Health Committee members. The Ray Jones review recommendations cut across Education and Health. As you are aware, Minister, looked-after children are already dealt a pretty raw deal, so I emphasise that you should go away and make this a priority. We know that budgets are constrained for all Departments, but these are very vulnerable children who are already dealing with so much on their plates in their family lives, and having that service in school is crucial for them.

Mr Givan: I am happy to find out more about that. The Member rightly articulates the need for support for looked-after children. The Jones report looked at the services that sit across Education, Justice and Health. I am happy to look into the particular issues that the Member has raised.

Mr Givan: We are at a critical point in relation to the early learning and childcare strategy. I published the ELC on 17 December. It was approved by the Executive. There was a 14-week public consultation that ended on 24 March. A total of 469 responses were received by the closing date. Officials are completing a comprehensive analysis of the written responses, along with the findings of the public consultation events. Findings from the consultation will be published shortly, and the publication and implementation of the final ELC strategy will be subject to Executive agreement and the necessary budget being made available.

Mr Wilson: Thank you, Minister. Can you indicate what the present funding position is in relation to that Executive priority?

Mr Givan: This is an area that, rightly, the Executive have prioritised. It is a Programme for Government commitment, and it is one of the projects that I believe the Executive can rightly be proud of delivering. My Department has been responsible for moving at pace, and there are many strands to it that have been very successfully implemented. The early learning and childcare strategy that was consulted on indicated that, for the first year of its operation — this year — approximately £75 million would be required to allow us to move forward with a number of schemes. However, the Sinn Féin Budget only allocated £55 million this year, £65 million next year and £75 million the following year. That is the height of Sinn Féin's Finance Minister's ambition in the draft Budget, which I continue to oppose. I listened to the First Minister talk about childcare being a priority, yet, when it comes to decisions in the Executive, Sinn Féin takes money away and makes a real-terms cut in that area. By way of an Executive paper, I have provided a figure for the funding that is needed: it is £75 million. I have also sought the funding through urgent procedure, because there are real-world consequences for many early learning and childcare providers if it is not provided. It is a ring-fenced pot of funding that does not sit in my Department; it sits separately. Unless the funding is provided, there will be a reduction, and that would be an indictment of the Executive. We are at a critical point. There should be an Executive meeting on Thursday, and I will continue to make the point. However, I appeal to Sinn Féin Members and the Sinn Féin members of the Education Committee to engage with their Finance Minister and First Minister to help me to help your constituents. I believe that they want to provide me with the support that is needed, but the request has been there for weeks, and we have not seen any movement.

Mr Givan: The issue was covered at length at the Education Committee. The position is still not where it ought to be. When I came into office, the position that I inherited was much worse than it is today. Changes have been made to the process for providing placements; there has been engagement with schools across the Province; needs have been identified and mapped out; and we have proactively reached out to the schools. That approach has proved successful.

We still need to work through a number of placements. Children are currently being assessed. If we had a cut-off point that meant that we placed children with SEN on the basis of their status on the same date as pupils who are not being statemented, those children would have a placement, but it would likely be in a school that was not the most appropriate for them. The current process involves ongoing consideration of admissions and statementing, and then the placement is aligned with the statement. I caution Members against saying that all children should receive the name of the school that they will attend in September on the same date. We could place the children, but the placements would not be the right one. A significant improvement has been made, through interventions by the Department and the EA, to engage more schools in this particular issue.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

The situation is once again at crisis point. What specific, strategic planning did his Department undertake over the past 12 months? Can he explain why that planning has failed?

Mr Givan: It is not just the last 12 months. When I came into office, I commissioned work to identify the issue with SEN provision and the capacity in our schools. All 39 special schools supporting children with severe learning difficulties needed school enhancements. The work that is needed has been identified and mapped out. We have also identified the work that needs to be done to facilitate specialist provision in mainstream education. I then brought a paper on a 10-year dedicated SEN capital programme to the Executive.

The Member asked about the strategic decisions and actions that I have taken in the last 12 months. A paper sat with the Executive for nearly a year before Sinn Féin allowed it on to the agenda for discussion — not even agreement. That paper was on providing dedicated funding to improve the infrastructure in our special schools. I met the Finance Minister recently, and an updated paper on the SEN capital programme has been provided to the Executive; it is still not on the agenda for discussion. What more can I, as the Education Minister, do to make the case for children with special educational needs before it is reciprocated in the Executive? I appreciate that Sinn Féin’s Members are very supportive of providing support to children with SEN, as am I. Will you have a word with your colleagues in the Executive?

Mr Givan: There were two court cases. The most recent decision at the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first court, and that validated my decision not to approve proposals to transform Rathmore Primary School and Bangor Academy. The court recognised the statutory duty to engage, facilitate and support integrated education but confirmed that article 92(6) of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 is a mandatory test. That was an important decision by the Court of Appeal.

Unnecessary expenditure has been incurred by my Department. Tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on representing our position in the courts, and an unnecessary legal challenge was taken, not once but twice. I appeal to people that we should not litigate our way through trying to get a policy outcome that clearly contravened the legislation that was passed in the Assembly in 2022 — legislation that my party did not support. The courts have upheld my interpretation of the way in which that legislation ought to be applied.

Mr Speaker: Time has elapsed for questions to the Minister of Education.

Mr Speaker: Diane Dodds has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Health Minister.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I may request an additional minute to respond.

Following last month's ballots, Northern Ireland members of the British Medical Association (BMA) have agreed to take industrial action over two 24-hour periods: consultants and SAS doctors on Thursday 25 June; and resident doctors on Monday 29 June. My Department has been working with the five health and social care trusts and with primary care to ensure that arrangements are in place to minimise and mitigate the impact on patients. However, it is deeply regrettable for the patients who will be impacted on that it is inevitable that some services will be disrupted.

Trusts have been working to quantify the level of impact and are undertaking risk assessments to ensure that emergency, cancer and time-critical interventions are protected as far as possible by involving parts of the workforce that are not participating in strike action. Trusts have agreed a regional payment rate for additional shifts, including on-call periods, and, where possible, are utilising a wider non-medical skills mix. Discussions are also ongoing regarding the potential for additional GP out-of-hours provision. Trusts will issue communications to clarify which appointments, diagnostics and treatments are affected.

Let me be clear: my firm expectation of the trusts is that disruption, cancellations and delays are kept to an absolute minimum. For instance, while the BMA locally may be warning of only a "Christmas Day" service later this week, I expect and anticipate significant volumes of elective activity to still be delivered. My Department will receive further details on the level of disruption by close of business tomorrow. The requirement to be agile right up to and on the days of strike is a lesson from the 2024 resident doctors action. There will be close monitoring of the rescheduling of any patient intervention, although, as scheduling is normally undertaken six weeks in advance, there may be some patients who are delayed. Trusts will, however, risk-assess those who require prioritisation.

It is regrettable that the action is proceeding. I have made it clear that pay parity is a matter for the Executive, and I apologise to the patients who will be impacted on. I urge the BMA to reflect on who is most greatly impacted on by its action. When the matter in dispute is not one that can be resolved by my Department alone, it is difficult to justify placing further pressure on many patients who are already waiting too long for their care.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. This is undoubtedly a worrying time for patients. Out of a population of around 1·8 million, over half a million people are waiting for a first-time consultant appointment. Only 5% of women who have a suspicious breast lump are seen within the appropriate time. Today, therefore, I want to give a voice to patients who are really concerned that strike action will impact on their appointments. Minister, do you believe that the current pay award is sufficient? If you believe that it is not sufficient, what alternatives have you offered to doctors to try to fend off the proposed strike action?

Mr Nesbitt: First, I accept that we have around half a million people on waiting lists. I hope, however, that the Member will accept that, for the past two quarters, the overall number has begun to shrink. That is a positive and hopeful sign to send out to the population, although I accept that those who are on long waiting lists have been waiting far too long and continue so to do.

The Member asked for my opinion on the pay award. In this case, the suggested award comes from the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB), which is a national body that makes recommendations for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is 3·5%. Look, I would like everybody who is delivering health and social care to wake up feeling good about themselves every morning, looking forward to going on shift, enjoying their work, going home feeling satisfied and feeling that their terms and conditions are reasonable, appropriate and equitable. As I understand it, however, the Member's party, my party and all the other Executive parties have bought into the idea of delivering pay parity as defined by delivering the recommendations of the DDRB and the National Health Service Pay Review Body, which is offering only 3·3% to allied health professionals and nurses. In this case, doctors are therefore getting another 0·2%. Would I like it to be more? Yes, I would, but my hands are tied, because, even if I were able to go beyond 3·5%, I would deem that to be repercussive not just for nurses but police officers, prison officers, teachers and, in fact, the entire public sector. I would therefore have to take it to the Executive. Today, I have submitted a paper to the Executive that I hope will be discussed at the next meeting.

Mr McGuigan: When I engage with health service sectors as my party's health spokesperson, there is not one that does not talk about workforce pressures and problems with staff recruitment and retention. That is clearly the case with doctors. There is clear evidence that doctors in particular have better pay and conditions in the South and that we are losing staff to the South as a result. What is the Minister's assessment of that? What have he and his Department done to try to retain doctors here in the North?

Mr Nesbitt: I take the point that sectors are unhappy, but there has hardly, if ever, been a debate in the Chamber in which someone did not point out to me that I have over 50% of the Executive Budget. We will have to reform how we deliver health and social care, because the direction of travel — from 46% to over 50% of the Executive Budget — is not sustainable.

A lot has been made of Sláintecare. Indeed, I was probably more concerned about Sláintecare than the statistics reveal that I should have been, because data demonstrates that, in the years since its introduction, the number of resignations of consultants aged under 60 in our health and social care system has remained consistently at under 2% of the workforce. I hope that that surprises the Member, because it surprised me. It is not just about money but about terms and conditions. Full-time consultants who are working for us can use two of their 10 programmed activities for their personal development. Our consultants are also free to work in the private healthcare sector. Neither of those opportunities applies under Sláintecare.

Mr Donnelly: The Minister mentioned the need to reform the health service. In light of the recent startling figures that show that half a billion pounds was spent on locums over the past three years, does he agree that investment in attracting permanent doctors may be a more prudent use of Department of Health resource?

Mr Nesbitt: I, of course, want to see every single penny be spent wisely and to best effect. A pound wasted in the Department of Health is a pound that could have been spent on social housing, in the Department for Infrastructure or in any other Department. On recruitment, however, I have to say to the Member that, in the three years from March 2023 to March 2026, there are 175·6 more whole-time-equivalent consultants, 174·9 more whole-time-equivalent SAS doctors and 376 more whole-time-equivalent resident doctors working in Health and Social Care (HSC). Those represent increases of 8·9%, 31% and 17·3% respectively. It is therefore not as though nothing is happening.

Mr Chambers: Minister, will you provide some clarity on the number of BMA members who voted in favour of strike action, and how that compares with the actual, overall number of staff in those posts?

Mr Nesbitt: I will. There are 2,300 consultants working in the HSC. The number of BMA members is lower. However, the total number of consultants is 2,300, of whom 542 voted for strike action. That is 23·6%. There are 2,600 resident doctors, again, not all of whom are members of the BMA, and 608 of them voted for strike action. That is 23·4%. There are 870 SAS doctors in total, of whom 282 voted for strike action. That is 32%. Across the three medical workforces, approximately a quarter, 24·8%, have voted for strike action.

Mr McGrath: The BMA has repeatedly argued that meaningful negotiations could prevent the industrial action altogether. What specific steps has the Minister taken in recent weeks to try to get involved in getting a resolution to the potential strike? What confidence will patients have that every effort is being made to prevent such strikes again in the future?

Mr Nesbitt: I met the chairs of the three BMA doctor committees on 11 June. I recognised their right to take strike action, and, indeed, they were very determined in their responses to me on that. I tried to make it clear to them that I feel that to move beyond the 3·5%, which I cannot pay at the moment, because we do not have an agreed Executive Budget, but that I will pay as soon as that Budget is agreed, was beyond my vires because, as I have said, it would be repercussive, certainly in my opinion, right across the public sector. Therefore, as it would be potentially contentious, I would have to take it and, hence, the paper, to the Executive.

One of the issues is the starting point, because we are going back three years and saying that, in that time, those three groups have had pay rises of between 24% and 30%. By comparison, for example, across the Agenda for Change, nurses and allied health professionals are at 14·8% and teachers are at 14·2%. However, consultants are saying, "No, you need to go back to 2008". If one does that, one sees that there has been a degree of pay erosion. We reckon it is around 8%. Therefore, it depends on where you pick your starting point. You really need the two sides to come together in the spirit of finding a resolution.

There is a thing to be said about a consultant saying, "I earn £145,000 because I am at the top of the tree, but 3·5% is not enough because of the cost-of-living crisis". Well, 3·5% of £145,000 will cover the cost-of-living crisis in the way that 3·5% of £25,000 or £35,000 a year will not. I am certainly still open to talks, but they seem to be dug in.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his answers. Will he provide an estimate of the number of outpatient appointments, procedures and operations that may be postponed as a result of the strike action?

Mr Nesbitt: That is not possible at the moment. The trusts continue to meet regularly, and they will meet at 4:00 pm tomorrow. At that point, I would like to think that there might be a little more clarity, but until we see the exact impact of the strike action, it is impossible to put figures on that, because, as I have already said, the majority of consultants, for example, did not vote for strike action. They may not be members of the British Medical Association, and they may decide to go for business as usual this Thursday and maybe even next Monday. It is not possible, at this stage, to put a figure on it, but the trusts have come together and communicated a single clear message to anybody with an appointment on either of the strike days: please assume that your appointment will go ahead unless explicitly told otherwise.

Miss McAllister: Minister, you said in a previous answer that there had been a pay erosion of "around 8%". However, the BMA have said that, since 2008, consultants are 26% worse off, SAS doctors are 21% to 25% worse off, and resident doctors are 20% worse off, so I am not sure where the difference in the figures comes from.

Regardless, Minister, we need a long-term solution. To that end, what work has your Department done on long-term planning for recruitment and retention to ensure that we will have a workforce and that the system does not collapse?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member is right to point out that there is a level of disagreement between the Department and the various BMA groups on the starting point and the comparator. We in the Department are very clear. If we take consultant pay, we see that, after the uplift to incorporate the DDRB's recommendation for 2026-27, the current maximum salary for a consultant in England is £150,569. I want to implement that recommendation locally, and, if and when we do that, the maximum pay point for consultants here will be £150,610, which is £41 more than that in England. Rather than continue to roll out statistics and disagree about where we start and how we finish, I am willing to sit down with the consultants and all the others again and continue to discuss the workforce, because, to my mind, five elements are key to delivering health and social care: buildings, beds, equipment, medicine and the workforce. If you do not have the right workforce in the right numbers in the right place with the right skills, and its members are not happy when they wake up and head off to their shift, the first four do not count for much more than a hill of beans.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, I recently asked about the cost of missed hospital appointments. That figure was £33 million per year. I assume that there will be a cost to strike action, as appointments will have to be changed or cancelled. Budgets are tight, so, setting aside the pay element, how much will the strike itself cost the Department and the trusts?

Mr Nesbitt: All I can say is that there will be a cost, because, inevitably, there will be disruption. As I said to your colleague Mr Robinson, at this stage, it is not possible to accurately predict the level of disruption and, therefore, the associated costs.

Mrs Cameron: Minister, what are your plans to retain doctors in Northern Ireland, given the fact that pay and working conditions are perceived to be better elsewhere, including across the border in the Republic of Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: As I mentioned to the House, when it comes to resignations of consultants in HSC under the age of 60 in recent years, we are only talking about a couple of per cent. Sláintecare is perhaps not as attractive as I thought instinctively when I took up the role, and that is not just about salary. It is about not being allowed to work in the private sector if you are under Sláintecare. It is about programmed activities being protected in Northern Ireland, whereby two out of 10 four-hour shifts can be used for personal development. We work with and listen to the workforce, and I insist that we cherish the workforce, because, of the five elements that I articulated, it is the only one that I cannot do without.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister on the question for urgent oral answer.

Mr Delargy: I start by going to the very heart of the motion and many of the comments that have been made around the Chamber today. The process for public appointments to Invest NI was fair, open, accountable and transparent. It was based on merit and ability. Many people do not like that, and many still will not tolerate a Catholic, nationalist or republican about the place. What we heard when Peter Lynch and Máirtín Ó Muilleoir were appointed, as we have heard time and time again, is people who simply want to attack republicans but have no reason why either should not have been appointed to the board of Invest NI. Both are better educated, more experienced and eminently more qualified than anyone I can see on the opposite Benches in the Chamber.

Why are the public appointments and equality processes important in employment? They are particularly important here in the North, for one simple reason. It is because for so many years, even decades, the unionist Government stopped Catholics, nationalists and republicans from having any access to public appointments and jobs. In my family, all four of my grandparents were teachers, and all four were told that they had to swear an oath of allegiance to a British monarch in order to do the job that they were qualified to do. In my parents' generation, simply, many people did not get jobs because of either where they were from or their identity.

I am the voice of a new generation that is deeply proud of those who have gone before us. It is a generation that is deeply proud of all those who ensured that we can enjoy the freedom that the unionist Government denied them. My generation will not lie down, will not acquiesce and will not allow regressive change. It will not return to the inequality, the suppression and all the other elements of the unionist state. They could not criminalise republicans in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and you will not criminalise republicans now.

What the SDLP motion, and particularly much of the commentary from across the House, has got to the heart of is that many people have jumped on the back of faux loyalist outrage. We have heard comments about political insiders and all these issues but without any basis, as usual. This is the same SDLP that voted to disbar any republican prisoners from the position of special adviser — the same SDLP that, when another nationalist or, God forbid, a republican, takes the office of First Minister, suddenly wants that title taken away. Many of the other parties in the Chamber have refused and will refuse to countenance a republican holding the office of Justice Minister. That is simply not acceptable.

My generation expects better and deserves better. Republicans are not and have never been second-class citizens, and we will not accept any lessons on second-class citizenship from other Members of the House.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I think the Member has just stood down.

Mr Gaston: Public appointments to arm's-length bodies have been a matter of controversy in recent days, and rightly so. Back in April, we saw the appointment of former Sinn Féin Finance Minister Martin Millar to the board of Invest NI. Earlier this month, Peter Lynch joined him on the very same board. Members will be aware that Mr Lynch was a passenger in a vehicle that was intercepted by the security forces at Boucher Crescent while on its way to attack an RUC workshop in west Belfast. Lynch was in possession of a pistol that, the court was told, he attempted to kick away from the vehicle when it was stopped.

When sentencing those involved to 24 years imprisonment in 1991, the judge remarked that they had shown no remorse for their actions. I wonder whether he, like the First Minister of "no alternative", still has no remorse for his actions on that day. When, last week, I asked the Minister for the Economy about that appointment, Ms Archibald still had not clarified the skill set that the former IRA man Peter Lynch brings to economic development that justifies his sitting on the board of Invest NI. I do not believe that appointments such as those, to positions that attract remuneration of around £15,000 a year for a part-time role, can reasonably be viewed as anything other than jobs for the boyos. In Mr Lynch's case, it is also an insult to the thousands of victims of IRA terrorism across the Province.

Public confidence in appointments should concern not only the Executive parties. Long-standing Members of the Assembly will know that the SDLP also has questions to answer on the matter. Members may recall that, in 2021, Jim Allister introduced the Political Appointments Bill. That Bill sought to address many of the concerns that are now being expressed in the Chamber and would have provided an opportunity, through scrutiny and amendment, to strengthen the provisions further, if Members had so wished. What happened, however? The SDLP joined Sinn Féin and its little helpers in Alliance in voting down the Bill at Second Stage. It would not even allow it to proceed to further consideration in Committee. Perhaps, during the winding-up speech, the SDLP will clarify for us why it took that position. Those are questions that the party that tabled the motion should answer. Over the years, we have heard much in the House about transparency, reform and restoring public confidence, yet, when legislation was introduced to tackle precisely those issues, many of the parties now expressing concern voted to kill the Bill at the first opportunity. In 2021, when the SDLP had the opportunity to do something about those issues in law rather than through a non-binding motion, as it is doing today, it chose to do nothing. It chose to vote it down.

Recent appointments to the Invest NI board have once again shown that cronyism is alive and well in Sinn Féin. Be assured that those will not be the last jobs for the boys, going by Sinn Féin's track record of abusing public appointments in other organisations to feather the nests of those boyos.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mr O'Toole to make a winding-up speech. Matthew, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to make a winding-up speech on the motion, which, it is fair to say, has prompted considerable commentary from different sides of the House. Members have chosen to selectively oppose or, indeed, to selectively support different parts of the motion.

First, let me be clear that, in being a robust and constructive Opposition, the SDLP has never shied away from being honest about the crisis of trust in our politics, its origins and, indeed, its symptoms. One of the symptoms is a sense among the public that this place — when it sits and functions — operates on the basis of a stitched-up deal between two parties for which being in office is about divvying up the spoils, managing the other side and ensuring that you get what you need for your own people rather than building the common good, prioritising the public's needs and delivering a clear set of priorities. That is a symptom of the dysfunction and failure at the heart of our political culture, so, to answer one of the first points in the debate, which was made by Deborah Erskine, we make absolutely no apology for bringing the debate to the Assembly today and robustly focusing the public's mind on the questions of cronyism in public appointments.

To be clear, our motion does not do what some Members accused it of doing, which was to seek to prevent anybody from holding public office who has a past, such as somebody who was involved in our conflict, even if they have a conviction. Mr Gaston talked about the Political Appointments Bill that his party leader, Mr Allister, introduced back in 2021. I was in the Assembly at that point, and the purpose of that Bill was to prevent anybody who had a criminal conviction above a certain tariff from ever serving in public office. The reason why we did not support the Bill was in recognition of the fact that we are a post-conflict society and that a judgement had been made in 1998 that, in order to move on from that conflict and bind people in, people's past did not mean that they could not have a future.

That remains our position.

That also answers some of Mr Delargy's points. I apologise for missing nearly all of what he said, although I heard some of it on a remote screen. Business moved a bit more quickly than expected, and I was unable to get back to the Chamber. However, I am aware of what he said. He appeared to say that the motion was somehow about penalising republicans: that is nonsense. The motion does not mention republicans. It is not about any one particular group of people. As I have just confirmed, it is not about undermining the ability of people who have a past to participate in our present or future.

The issue is that we have commonplace appointments of serving political representatives to public bodies. That risks creating a perception of cronyism. Colin McGrath mentioned appointments by Sinn Féin and DUP Ministers. Let me be explicit and give examples. The current chair of the Education Authority is Mervyn Storey, who is a serving DUP politician. He used to be a Member. I cast no aspersions about how Mervyn has conducted himself in that office. He is an able and very personable man, and he knows a fair bit about education. I acknowledge all that. However, he is a serving DUP politician; he is still elected and takes the DUP whip in, I believe, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council. The public out there see that the chair of a public body with a vital role in regulating the education system is not a former politician, as Deborah Erskine seemed to imply, but a current politician. I presume that he, as a member of the Member's party, takes instruction on many issues of policy from — [Interruption.]

Does he not? I am happy to give way to the Member for her to tell me that he is not a councillor any more because he has resigned in the past little while.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Sure.

Mrs Erskine: Are you implying that, when he is chair of that board, he takes direction from the likes of the Minister? Obviously, that is a very —.

Mr O'Toole: We are clearly not doing that. We have raised an important point, but you, Mrs Erskine, have attempted to shut down debate by pretending that I said something that I did not. I did not say that. I said that a perception is created when serving political representatives are appointed to public bodies. It is not best practice. I do not think that you see it in lots of other roles.

By the way, that is different from political representatives on those boards. Political parties are able to appoint political representatives to the board of the Education Authority and the Policing Board, for example. Colin McGrath, who proposed the motion, is a political member of the Policing Board. Political parties are able to nominate people for the specific purpose of providing —

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will in a second.

— elected oversight and scrutiny. Nuala McAllister, who is in the Chamber, is another member of the Policing Board. Those are legitimate roles; political parties have appointed persons to scrutiny roles. However, in the case of the chair of the Education Authority, that is a serving politician who has been publicly appointed, which is distinct from being specifically a political appointment. By definition, those are not political appointments; they are public appointments. The same goes in a different regard for the deputy chair of InterTradeIreland, Mr Cathal Mallaghan, who is MP for Mid Ulster. I am sure that he is a fine public representative, and I know that he has lots of expertise in business matters, but he is still a serving Sinn Féin politician.

I am saying nothing libellous or controversial; I am simply saying that those are public bodies to which we have appointed serving political party representatives as chairs and deputy chairs. That is not normal in most places. That is not to say that those people cannot have any role in those public bodies; we all scrutinise them in the course of our activities as political representatives. Indeed, in certain specific circumstances — I have mentioned the Policing Board and the Education Authority — political parties are entitled under statute, standing orders or whatever the specific provision is to appoint people to represent them on those boards. However, those are public appointments that have been given to political appointees. That will potentially create a public perception of cronyism, particularly when we did not have a Commissioner for Public Appointments for five years. Sinn Féin and DUP Members who look askance at me and ask how dare I say such things ought to wake up and ask the public what they think. Deborah Erskine mentioned people on the doors: she should ask people on the doors whether they think that Sinn Féin and the DUP carve things up among themselves. They will give her a fairly honest impression about what they think. What I have just said is not particularly controversial.

To repeat — because this is a highly litigious society in which people constantly threaten things — I am not saying anything offensive or libellous about any individual; those are two decent public representatives. However, there is a legitimate question that I have raised. There are other examples. People have talked about Invest NI, but I draw a distinction between former politicians — people who were formerly elected — and current politicians. There is a legitimate distinction there.

Robbie Butler spoke for the UUP, which is supporting the motion, as is the Alliance Party. I welcome the remarks that Stewart Dickson made.

This is not about scoring points, but it is important to say in response to some of what was said that the Opposition and other parties that are not on the Executive come here to scrutinise the Executive, and we make no apology for that. That is often called "scoring political points": perhaps if we had more political point-scoring on practical policy and on improving governance here, we might make more progress, rather than simply having the two big Executive parties ping-ponging on whatever angry issue of the day there is.

We are clear that we need to improve trust in our politics. There is a perception that has gotten abroad that we have a kind of Wild West, with a divvying up of appointments. The failure to appoint a Commissioner for Public Appointments for years and years contributed to that. We need to improve public trust, which is what our motion is about. That is why we think that a review would be healthy. We also are fearless about being honest about the need to improve public perceptions of this institution. Just look at the response when the pay recommendation for Members came back from another independent public body. That was part of a broader picture of lack of trust in our politics and in the institutions. We should do absolutely everything that we can to improve trust in the transparency and probity of the institutions, and anybody who thinks otherwise is, I am afraid, kidding themselves and is in denial about public perceptions of our politics and Stormont. At every opportunity, we will seek to challenge those perceptions in order to improve them, and we make no apology for doing that. To that end, I hope that other political parties will support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, please take your ease for a moment before we move on to the next item of business.

Mr Durkan: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have three minutes.

Mark, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker.

For many people, there is no greater privilege or joy in life than becoming a parent, but that is not a gift that is afforded to everyone. For thousands of individuals and couples across Northern Ireland, the dream of starting a family is overshadowed by the heartbreak of infertility. However, families were given hope through the hard-won commitment secured in the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement to expand publicly funded IVF provision to three cycles. It was recognition that access to fertility treatment should not depend on wealth or postcode. It was a commitment that people organised their lives around and believed would be delivered.

Six years on, that promise, like so much in NDNA, remains undelivered, leaving many couples watching the clock tick down on time that they cannot afford to waste while they wait for a commitment that should have been honoured long ago. Every month that passes is another month that reduces their chances of success. As they age out of the process, they watch that promised opportunity quietly slip away.

For those fortunate enough never to have experienced infertility, it can be difficult to understand the emotional toll that it takes. Having spoken to many people who have been impacted, I know that every hospital appointment carries hope and fear. The process leaves couples wondering not only how they will cope emotionally but whether they will be able to afford a chance financially. The cost of private IVF is simply beyond the reach of many. It forces people into impossible decisions — remortgaging homes, exhausting life savings, spiralling into debt or delaying treatment while desperately trying to save enough money for another cycle. Age does not pause because someone's finances do. The clock keeps ticking.

NICE recommends that eligible patients should receive up to three full cycles of IVF. Success rates improve over multiple cycles. Thus, three cycles is not a luxury but represents a realistic opportunity for conception. However, in the North, we continue to lag behind. Families here continue to receive less support than families in Scotland and Wales, which offer three and two cycles respectively.

Over recent months, I have heard from many individuals and families whose stories illustrate the human reality behind today's motion. I am delighted to have some of those ladies in the Public Gallery today. One woman told me that, after paying the mortgage, childcare and household bills, it would take almost two years to save enough for one more private cycle. Another explained that her husband's infertility arose directly from life-saving cancer treatment. IVF is their only chance of having a child. Many women have endured the heartbreak of repeated miscarriages but cannot access further investigations. Those are not isolated cases; they reveal a system that, too often, compounds distress rather than alleviates it.

We also need to be honest about the wider state of fertility care. The system is under real strain, and nowhere is that clearer than in the Western Health and Social Care Trust where, as of 2024, 239 women were waiting for more than a year to be seen for a fertility assessment. That is a year of waiting before treatment can even be considered to be commenced. Others have asked a fair question about what happens to those who have been through treatment already. Will the promise, if ever delivered, simply benefit future patients, while those who have spent years waiting are left behind? Surely, fairness demands that we examine backdating eligibility so that families who have already carried the burden of the delays are not penalised because the Executive failed to deliver what they had promised.

Families who have endured the emotional and financial challenges of fertility treatment should not have to spend money on fighting through the courts to secure legal recognition of their family — an interlinked issue on which I am doing a piece of work with the Finance Minister. It is another injustice that must be addressed.

I pay tribute to Fairness (IN) Fertility, campaigners and all the organisations involved for their advocacy and persistence. The motion is about keeping promises that have already been made. Let us deliver three publicly funded IVF cycles and fair transitional arrangements for those who have been left waiting. Those people are still hoping and waiting.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Mr Durkan: They deserve more than sympathy. They deserve action, and they deserve it now.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Miss Armstrong, were you indicating that you want to come in?

Ms K Armstrong: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): OK, thank you.

I call Ms Flynn, and I remind Members that they have three minutes.

Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I support the motion, and I thank its sponsors.

For many people, the journey to becoming a parent is not straightforward. Whilst some conceive without difficulty, others face years of heartbreak, uncertainty and loss. For those facing infertility, IVF and assisted treatments can offer hope when all other options have been exhausted. As someone who has undergone IVF, I know that the issue is deeply personal. I have spoken publicly about my IVF journey and the loss that I experienced along the way. Like so many others, I know the emotional impact of infertility. I know the anticipation that comes with every appointment, every scan and every phone call, and, sadly, I know about the heartbreak that there is when the treatment does not succeed.

I have learned that people often talk about IVF as though it guarantees a baby. Tragically, the reality is that that is not always the case. This is not the first motion calling for three cycles of IVF that we have debated. The motion's sponsors are right that that was agreed under New Decade, New Approach and that we are lagging behind England, Scotland and Wales, where there is access to two and three rounds of IVF respectively. You never know which round is going to be your last chance, and that is if you are even lucky enough to qualify for a round of IVF, so time is precious. The journey is extremely unpredictable and filled with ups and downs. Regrettably, you cannot dictate that the outcome will be a successful pregnancy and a baby. That is why it is so important and the right thing to do to give any individual or couple that need to undergo IVF to have a baby the best possible chance.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. Like you, I have been through IVF — the hell that it is, I have to say. In the current context in Northern Ireland, do you agree that it is those who have money who can go through IVF as opposed to any family in Northern Ireland, and that we now have a class system in our health service?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Flynn: Thank you. I completely agree: we absolutely have a two-tier system, and it is stark when it comes to IVF. There are many other examples of the two-tier system, but with IVF, where there is the potential to create a new life and have a wee baby of your own, there are, as has been said, people who can take forward that option if they have the money and others who cannot because they simply do not have the money. Of the people who are paying for it privately, I am sure that many are getting themselves into great debt by using credit cards or borrowing from family members, a credit union or wherever. That is not the space that we want to be in. Given what we are talking about — the potential of creating a new life and giving someone the opportunity to have a wee baby of their own and create their own family — we should do anything that we can do to make that process easier and doable. I know that we have to live in the real world, and there is the question of where we get the money from to expand the provision from one cycle to three. Given that the commitment was agreed in New Decade, New Approach, however, and the fact that we are at a disadvantage compared with other places across these islands, the question is how we can make it happen.

I, too, welcome the women in the Public Gallery.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you to those in the Chamber and those in the Public Gallery whose human experiences are the nub of the debate. Too often, we deal in just statistics, but those are real people, real families and real lives.

It is now anticipated that more than eight out of 10 couples in which the woman is under 40 will conceive naturally, but that leaves two out of 10 who will need additional interventions. Over a lifespan, that is a fairly substantial number of people. In 2023, over 20,000 babies were born in Northern Ireland via the IVF process, which is up from 8,500 in the year 2000. It is a significant issue, Minister, and one that needs to be dealt with.

Earlier in the year, I asked a question about IVF, and you indicated that your Department was continuing to work with the regional fertility centre to explore the feasibility of expanding current capacity and that all feasible options for moving to even a second cycle were actively being considered. Minister, for Members and those who are listening to the debate, it is important that you tell us what "actively being considered" means on a day-to-day basis. In February 2024, your predecessor said that there were challenges that needed to be addressed before we could move to a second and third cycle of IVF, including increasing the physical footprint of the regional fertility centre and having the appropriate number of specialist staff in place. Again, Minister, I ask you to comment on the progress that has been made on those issues.

It is interesting that NICE now indicates that, on the basis of best clinical evidence, three cycles of IVF for women under 40 who have fertility problems is the approach that would be most likely to maximise successful pregnancies as well as being cost-effective. Minister, given that the NICE guidelines —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Diane, could you draw your remarks to a close?

Mrs Dodds: — you scared the life out of me — were published —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am not scaring you — come on — but you will need to draw your remarks to a close.

Mrs Dodds: Sorry. Given that they were published on 31 March, Minister, can you tell me whether you have adopted them?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the Fairness in Fertility campaign group members who are in the Public Gallery.

Alliance has long been committed to ensuring that couples can access fertility treatment on an equal basis across these islands, not just on an equal basis but on a basis on which they can receive a positive result at the end. Like many Members, we are aware that there are limited funding options, so the move to a three-cycle system is the right approach in that sense, but it is really disappointing, given Robin Swann's announcement a number of years ago, that we have not seen an increase in the number of cycles.

Following on from the comments of Mrs Dodds, we were told that there was a need for an increase in the physical footprint of the regional fertility centre, but it would be interesting to hear what actual work has been progressed on that, if anything at all has been done. At the end of the day, business cases will have to be made and all feasible options will have to be looked at, so it would be helpful if the Minister could outline what work has been done so that, when we are in a position to finance second and third cycles, we can move to that without delay.

We are all aware that people currently undergo just one full cycle of IVF, but it is not as simple as getting an appointment at the regional fertility clinic and then undergoing treatment. We all know that the wait takes much longer, because, while you may wait a certain time for a physical appointment, it is not as simple as waiting six months to conceive and then getting your appointment. There is year on year of delay, and, if there are negative results at the end of it, for many couples, we are talking about a wait of more than five years.

In my family, I have been lucky and privileged enough to have had two children without any issues, but number 16 of the McAllister grandbabies was an IVF baby whom we call "our miracle", baby Joy. Baby Joy brought immense joy to our family. It is difficult to witness the people whom you love looking at the people around them — family and friends — continuing to have babies when they are not so lucky. There are other people who undergo cycles of IVF through the NHS and then also pay for it privately who do not get a positive result in the end. Many of them never get answers to why it was not successful. We have to have the best options available for those people so that they, too, can get that joy in the end.

Mr Chambers: For many, the ability to start or grow a family is a major priority; for others, it is not a priority at all. When fertility problems stand in the way of that dream, the emotional toll can be immense. There has already been reference to the commitment in NDNA, which was one reason why my party very much welcomed that agreement. However, six years on, people are entirely justified in asking what progress has been made. Thankfully, there has been some.

In 2024, publicly funded provision was expanded to provide eligible women with one full cycle of IVF treatment through the use of additional frozen embryo transfers. That was not a headline-grabbing announcement, but it represented a meaningful improvement for many families and was delivered despite the considerable financial and operational pressures facing our health service. In addition, waiting times have been dramatically reduced from the levels experienced during and after the pandemic. Patients now wait for around one month to commence IVF treatment once placed on the treatment list, compared with waits that stretched to well over a year previously.

At the same time, I recognise that many people will look at other parts of these islands, such as Scotland and Wales, and ask why Northern Ireland has not yet reached the same number of funded cycles. When I have engaged on the matter, the Minister has made it clear that work continues on the feasibility of introducing a second cycle of treatment. It is still a case of "When", not "If". I welcome that work and encourage it to continue at pace, but I recognise not just the financial challenges but the logistical challenges of delivering it.

I note that the motion:

to allow for

That would be a good outcome and very welcome, but, given the failure of the Executive to agree a Budget and the well-known financial pressures being experienced by the Department of Health, can it be achieved without dropping or reducing some other services? I am sure that the Minister will address that point.

Ultimately, fertility treatment should not be viewed as a luxury or an optional extra. For many families, it represents hope and the chance to realise deeply held aspirations. While significant challenges remain, it is right to acknowledge the progress that has been achieved in supporting the ongoing work to expand provision further and to continue pressing for solutions that are affordable, sustainable and fair to all who rely on such services.

Mr Robinson: Like others, I support the motion. For many individuals and couples across Northern Ireland, the dream of becoming parents is accompanied by years of emotional heartbreak. Couples who have undergone that journey will tell you that it is the uncertainty that kills them. For those individuals, IVF is often the only pathway to having a child, yet access beyond the funded pathway depends increasingly on the size of a person's bank account. The cost of a single privately funded IVF cycle can run to several thousand pounds, and some patients require more than one cycle to achieve a successful pregnancy. For some families, that means taking on debt or spending their savings to raise the necessary funds. For many others, it simply means that, beyond the one funded full cycle in Northern Ireland, treatment is out of reach. Couples will tell you that that is not equality of access to healthcare. It will therefore be good to hear from the Minister today on whether options are being explored for at least a second funded cycle. As it stands, IVF here creates a two-tier system in which those with financial means can pursue their hopes of parenthood while others are left with little hope.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended that eligible patients under the age of 40 should be offered three full cycles of IVF treatment.

NICE has consistently maintained that having three cycles provides patients with the best opportunity of achieving a successful pregnancy and represents clinically effective care. That has been part of NICE guidelines since 2013.

Furthermore, NDNA commits the Executive to expanding publicly funded IVF provision in Northern Ireland to three cycles. That commitment was welcomed by patients, healthcare staff and advocacy groups. It was an announcement that was seen as offering a little hope that Northern Ireland would finally move towards the best standards of care that are available across these islands; yet people in Northern Ireland continue to face lower levels of publicly funded IVF provision than is available in other parts of these islands. I have heard from couples who say that their chances of accessing fertility treatment should not depend on which part of the United Kingdom they happen to live in. Members will be aware that fertility declines with age. Delays to accessing treatment can therefore have profound consequences. Every year that passes means that some patients who may otherwise have benefited from treatment lose the opportunity altogether.

While I am conscious of the current situation with the Budget, I will support the motion.

Ms K Armstrong: I was not going to speak, but I thought that some humanity needed to be put into the debate. I have mentioned that I have been through IVF. The situation was very different in the late '90s, which is when I was going through it. People do not consider the harm that it does to the couple, especially the mother, when they are waiting for the infertility treatment. Currently, there is very little support, and, as far as I am aware, no support for a person's mental health, when they have been through one cycle of IVF and can no longer afford to go through any more. That is certainly the situation that I found myself in. The guilt and the feeling of loss, just because there is an issue with money, is heartbreaking to women.

I would like to hear from the Minister on some things in his summing up. What steps have been taken, since 2004, to expand capacity at the regional fertility centre? What progress has been made on considering the recruitment of the additional specialist workforce that is needed to deliver more IVF cycles? Has the Department secured the recurrent funding that former Minister Swann identified as being essential? Crucially, what is the clear, time-bound plan to finally deliver on the commitment to have two and then three cycles of IVF? I do not know whether it will be possible to achieve that during this mandate, given the fact that we do not even have a Budget, but too many women and couples are waiting for far too long to get help with their infertility.

More of us across Northern Ireland have fertility problems now, and more of us have to wait until later in life to try to have a baby, because of work, money, the cost of living and so on. Our people are denied. In Manchester, Swansea or Edinburgh, they could go through more cycles, but, here, we say, "No". That adds to the pressure and the grief that people with fertility problems who cannot afford fertility treatment face, when they know that the first fertility cycle is often the one that helps to identify the treatment that is needed. The types of hormones and all that is settled on during the first cycle, and it may be the second or third cycle before someone actually gets pregnant.

I have put a few questions to the Minister. I ask that he consider those. It is very unfair and sad to leave somebody behind in the fertility race.

Mr Harvey: We all know somebody who has experienced the heartbreak and challenges of infertility. Around one in seven couples experiences difficulty conceiving, yet many continue to carry the burden in silence due to the stigma that still surrounds it. It is time that we give those individuals and couples a voice. It is time to show that they have been heard, by expanding publicly funded IVF provision in Northern Ireland to meet the recommendations set out in the NICE guidelines and providing access to up to three cycles of IVF treatment.

A member of staff from my office underwent NHS-funded IVF treatment after campaigning against proposed cuts to the vital service. Unfortunately, their NHS-funded treatment was unsuccessful, so they were forced to pursue private treatment. However, the information that was gathered from that initial cycle with the NHS enabled clinicians to make minor adjustments to their treatment plan, so their very first private cycle was successful. For many couples, the first IVF cycle provides a valuable insight into how an individual responds to medication and procedures. That information can then be used to tailor future treatment cycles, significantly improving the chances of success. That is why access to multiple cycles is so important.

The evidence speaks for itself. The cumulative pregnancy rate for IVF treatment is approximately 32% after the first cycle, rising to around 55% after the second cycle and reaching between 65% and 70% after the third cycle. Those figures demonstrate why limiting access to a single cycle falls short of providing meaningful support to those struggling with infertility.

No couple chooses to embark on the IVF journey. For many women and couples who long to have children, it is not a choice but a necessity, because natural conception is simply not always possible. The emotional, physical and financial toll can be immense. If we are serious about tackling inequality in healthcare and supporting families across Northern Ireland, we must ensure fair access to fertility treatment. Introducing three publicly funded IVF cycles would bring Northern Ireland closer to the standards that NICE recommends and offer hope to thousands of individuals and couples facing one of the most difficult journeys of their lives.

Those experiencing infertility deserve to know that they are not alone, that their struggles are recognised and that the Assembly is committed to providing them with the support that they need to build the family that they dream of having.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion today and thank Fairness (IN) Fertility for joining us in the Gallery. Behind every statistic on fertility treatment is a person, a couple and a family who have often endured years and years of heartbreak, uncertainty and disappointment before ever setting foot in a clinic.

In preparing for the debate, I met people who have gone through IVF and listened to their experiences. Some of what they told me was deeply moving, while some of it was deeply concerning. One couple told me that they had done everything that they were asked to do. They went down the NHS route first, but it did not work. After a lengthy process, they were left with just one embryo. Eventually, they made the decision to go private, despite the cost, because they felt that they had run out of options. They told me that if they had not been in the position to pay privately, they would not have the child whom they have today. That should give us all pause for thought.

The reality is that many people are simply being priced out of parenthood. The cost of treatment is only part of the story. There are also travel costs, the need for time off work, repeated appointments and medication, as well as the emotional strain that comes with trying to fit treatment around everyday life. One person described trying to integrate IVF treatment with every other aspect of their life as constantly juggling. Another told me that it can be an incredibly isolating experience, yet, despite that reality, workplace support remains inconsistent. Some people are entitled to only a couple of days' leave for IVF treatment, while others have no formal support at all.

We rightly talk about supporting working families.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. Ms Armstrong made a very personal and poignant contribution, in which she highlighted the lack of psychological support available or offered to people who are going through the IVF process. Will the Member concur that that also needs to be addressed?

Ms McLaughlin: Absolutely, and many have said it in here. The emotional —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms McLaughlin: — and psychological impact of infertility and fertility treatment also deserves greater recognition. A lot of couples have to go to counselling after their experiences, and that too is very emotionally draining. The people whom I met spoke about their anxiety, stress and trauma. One individual described how a mental health assessment failed to take a trauma-informed approach and thus had a significant impact on them during an already difficult process. The process puts a strain on couples and their relationship, and we cannot separate fertility treatment from mental health because they are intrinsically linked. The stark difference between NHS and private provision was repeatedly raised with me, and people mentioned outdated equipment, long waiting lists and a lack of transparency about the treatment options. I look forward to the Minister addressing some of those concerns in his remarks.

Why are there such significant differences in the technology and standards between NHS provision and the private clinics? Nobody should feel that their chances of success depend on whether they can afford private treatment. People should not be left to navigate a fragmented system, where the information is not properly shared between providers, and there is little support for those transitioning from NHS treatment to private clinics.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Ms McLaughlin: Those who shared their experiences with me showed enormous courage. I ask Members to support the motion today. However, more importantly, we need action, Minister.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I pay tribute to the people in the Gallery who raised the important issue.

As we have heard, the NICE guidelines recommend that the NHS should offer three full cycles of IVF treatment to eligible parents, and that has proved to be the most clinically effective method. The method has been adopted in Scotland, and there is no reason why parents, or those who want to be parents, should be denied the opportunity. In Wales, patients are entitled to two cycles of IVF treatment under the NHS, but patients in the North are entitled to only one cycle. Once again, we are being left behind, and this place is an outlier.

The ability to have a family should not be a postcode lottery, but, unfortunately, much of our health system is just that. The limited system that exists puts an unnecessary emotional and financial burden on those who are struggling with infertility, and that should be a cause for concern for everybody here. It also creates a tiered system where those who can afford multiple rounds of private IVF have a better chance of having children than those who cannot. Far too many eligible patients are being forced to spend thousands of pounds of their own money or get into debt to fund private IVF treatment, and that is completely unacceptable, but it is also normalised.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. The Member mentioned that some people have spent thousands of pounds on treatment. Will the Member agree that some people simply do not have the money? I was in that position, and I was entitled to one cycle of IVF, and I had my miracle baby. Had I not got pregnant or not carried the pregnancy to term, I would not have had the money to pay for private treatment. I would never have been a mummy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for raising that point. I pay tribute to her and the other Members who have spoken about their experiences. Finances should not come into healthcare decisions; it is not supposed to come into those decisions. However, the Member and others have been told that their chances of having a baby depend on whether they have money or can borrow money and get into debt, which is completely unacceptable. I thank the Member for her intervention, and I agree with her point.

The wider issue is that one in seven heterosexual couples is now struggling with infertility. The issue has increased over the past 20 years. In 2023, approximately 20,000 children were born after IVF treatment, whereas there were just under 9,000 in the year 2000. The number is likely to continue to rise because the global trend is for people to have children later in life. The state should not decide who is or is not able to become a parent and get access to more than one cycle of IVF treatment. That, to me and to many others, seems cruel.

It is also worth noting that delayed parenthood is, in part, due to the financial pressures associated with children. Once again, class is the key determinant in the debate, as it is with many other health issues. The cost-of-living crisis is getting worse, and childcare has become unaffordable for too many families. It is totally unfair that the ability to have children depends on income.

The disparity in the care received by same-sex couples is equally unfair; they must go through a number of unsuccessful artificial insemination attempts in private clinics to prove that they are infertile and therefore eligible for IVF treatment. It seems, to me, to be quite cruel. I am not medically trained, but I do not see the necessity for that, and maybe the Minister can tell us why that is the case.

That requirement obviously comes with health risks and creates financial costs.

I commend the Members for tabling the motion and am happy to support it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker, and thanks to the Opposition for bringing a debate on this issue. All healthcare is personal, and I thank Órlaithí Flynn, Kellie Armstrong, Linda Dillon and Nuala McAllister for making the debate personal, because that is the only way that we will really understand.

I welcome the opportunity to update Members on the work to increase the provision of IVF. As Members have said, that is a commitment from New Decade, New Approach, and it is also recommended in guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. There are many people who long for a child to start or extend their family and are desperate to hear when the current fertility service will be expanded. Members will be aware that it was actually my party that requested and secured that commitment in NDNA. The commitment was, on the one hand, a welcome recognition by the Executive that, for far too long, women and hopeful couples in Northern Ireland had to experience the imbalance of IVF provision, which is below what NICE recommends and below that which is available across some other parts of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, I ask Members to recognise that no additional funding has ever been provided by the Executive to implement that NDNA commitment. That means, of course, that the service can only grow by doing more with the same resources, as we have done — I will come to that in a moment — or by stopping something else.

In 2020, women who met the access criteria were able to access one fresh cycle of IVF and one frozen embryo transfer — that is to say, a partial first cycle. We then established a project board to work with the regional fertility service to explore ways of expanding provision. Like many, that service was severely impacted on by the COVID response but recovered quickly, and I record my thanks to those staff for clearing the resultant backlogs. Investment to increase staff numbers and physical space have also been key constraints. By February 2024, my predecessor, Robin Swann, was able to announce an increase in provision to one full cycle from within existing resources. That enabled all eligible women who were added to the waiting list for treatment from 1 October 2022 to use all their frozen embryos until a live birth was achieved. At that time, however, it was made clear that any further expansion of the service would depend on securing additional funding and additional capacity at the regional fertility centre, both physical space and additional staff to deliver that increased capacity.

Although those are significant constraints, I remain keen to find a way to increase provision for those who are struggling with fertility. It should be noted that any increase would be on an incremental basis, and, accordingly, efforts are being made to scope requirements to offer a second cycle. While additional funding has still not been secured, I assure Members that my officials and the staff at the regional fertility centre are working to continue to explore ways to increase provision within the current funding envelope. That includes considering the additional staff required to deliver any increase and seeking to secure additional accommodation as required.

I mentioned waiting times. Part of the challenge of expanding a service within its current funding envelope is to do so sustainably and to ensure that any increase in provision is not to the detriment of the current service. In May, the waiting times were 12 weeks for a first appointment, one month for IVF after being put on the waiting list for treatment — it was 16 months during COVID — and three months for frozen embryo treatment after being put on the waiting list. Again, that was much longer — 12 months — during COVID. While I am not yet in a position to confirm a further increase in provision, I am assured that all avenues are being explored to identify the additional financial and physical resources to allow that to happen.

With regard to the equity of services across the rest of the United Kingdom, I ask Members to note that, in England, provision varies across the country, depending on the location of the patient. Many authorities provide one IVF cycle, while others provide up to two or maybe even three. While I note that Scotland currently offers up to three cycles to eligible women and Wales offers up to two cycles, access criteria in both those jurisdictions are more restrictive for some of the criteria, meaning that publicly funded treatment is available to a wider cohort of women here in Northern Ireland. For example, there is no barrier to women accessing fertility treatment here if they or their partner already has a living child. That is not the case in Scotland or Wales, where treatment is available only if either the woman or her partner does not have a living child. In addition, couples accessing treatment in Wales and Scotland must have been in a relationship for a minimum of two years. That is not the case here. In Scotland, those who use artificial insemination to demonstrate infertility must undergo six to eight treatment cycles, and it is six in Wales. In Northern Ireland, that has been reduced to four, thereby offering earlier access to other treatments than in Scotland and Wales. I accept that that makes it somewhat difficult to compare across regions. While some areas may provide more cycles of IVF, the criteria in Northern Ireland are less restrictive and mean that treatment is available to a wider number of women. Nevertheless, the guiding principle, as we seek to expand provision in what is an extremely constrained climate, is to use the resources that we have to maximise access to these important services on a fair and equitable basis.

Diane Dodds pointed out that, on 31 March 2026, NICE published a revised guideline, NG257, fertility problems: assessment and treatment. In response to her question, that is being assessed by my Department. However, 31 March was effectively three months ago, so I will ask questions and look for a decisive timeline for reaching a decision on that. Kellie Armstrong asked about a time-bound commitment to investment and expansion. I have to go back to the motion and the call on me:

I would love to do that. However, I live in a world where conditions and treatments compete for funding and resources, and nobody has given me a proposal for where I should find the money. Should I give up the plan to do 24/7 thrombectomy? Should I abandon plans to lower the age for bowel cancer screening? Should I close an intensive care unit bed to find the funds? That is the world that I live in. I regret that, because I would like to move to three cycles immediately. In the real world, however, we can do it only as quickly as we can. That, I am afraid, is my limited commitment to Members today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech. Colin, you have five minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you. I thank all Members for their contributions. What we have heard makes one thing absolutely clear: this is a broken promise, and the people who are paying the price are individuals and couples from across Northern Ireland who simply want the chance to start a family. I acknowledge the campaigners and families who are in the Gallery, some of whom shared their experiences with my colleagues directly before the debate. I want them to know that the debate exists because they have refused to stay silent. One story that was shared earlier deserves repeating. A couple said that, if they had not been able to pay privately, they would not have the child who they have today. That reflects not a health service that is working as intended but a system where the ability to become a parent depends on ability to pay.

New Decade, New Approach committed the Executive to expanding publicly funded IVF provision to three cycles, in line with NICE guidelines. That was not an SDLP commitment but an Executive one. Five years later, it remains undelivered. People here have access to less fertility treatment than people in Scotland and Wales. Behind that failure are real people. One couple has spent more than 15 years trying to start a family. They have gone through 18 rounds of ovulation induction, three rounds of IVF and four miscarriages. They are now facing another private cycle costing at least £5,000 before medication and scans. That is not a luxury that they can put off: it is the hope of having a child. Another couple began treatment through the regional fertility centre but suffered serious complications and a heartbreaking loss. We have also had personal contributions from Órlaithí, Linda and Kellie and on behalf of Nuala's family. Those people are still trying, but, at their current rate of saving, it could take them another three to four years to afford further treatment, by which time, they have been advised, their opportunity may have passed.

Infertility affects around one in six couples. As one campaigner said, had she broken her leg, she would have been treated without question. Too often, infertility is treated as something that people should simply endure rather than as a healthcare need that deserves support.

The motion does not ask for a new policy, because the commitment already exists. The guidance already exists. What is missing is delivery. In the motion, we call on the Minister to, by the end of the mandate, introduce proposals and secure the funding needed to provide up to three cycles of treatment — not another review or another working group but a funded plan with a clear timeline.

Whilst I appreciate that finances are difficult, I must say to the Minister that it is difficult listening to him say, "I cannot afford it. What would I scrap in its place?" That is cold comfort to the couples out there who wish to start a family, knowing that their priority is not matched by their Executive. That must feel like a bitter blow to them, so I hope that we can work together and see the Executive pulling together to deliver on their commitment. Today, the fact that every single Member who spoke supported the motion adds to the consensus on this. However, it is no use only supporting a motion in the Chamber when there are a few cameras on us and some people are in the Gallery. We need to see that commitment in the Executive. We need to see that commitment in the Executive turn into delivery, and that delivery will make a difference to people and their lives.

There is no credible reason why Northern Ireland should continue to lag behind neighbouring regions on something as fundamental as the chance to start a family.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does the Member agree, as so many have already said here today, that it is not good enough that we are not only lagging behind here in the North but are, we know, underfunded? If the Minister makes this a priority, we may have an opportunity with the new Prime Minister, who might actually listen. I am not sure. That remains to be seen. However, this is an opportunity for the Minister, as part of the Executive, to go and lobby him on what is a stated priority under NDNA.

Mr McGrath: Absolutely. I agree with you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Colin, you have an extra minute, so do not feel rushed.

Mr McGrath: I appreciate those remarks. There is no point in all of us here agreeing on something and then not doing anything about it. That only gives false hope to people. What is the term that we heard in Committee last week? It was "hope-mongering". We do not want to do that: to simply give hope to people but not see it through to delivery. That is the challenge for the Executive: to deliver on it.

I will end with the words of someone who has led the campaign for 15 years and who put it best. She told us, "Northern Ireland needs to do better. Stand up for your people. Listen to them and support them".

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, indeed, Colin, and thank you very much, indeed, ladies and gentlemen, for the tone and positivity throughout the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We move swiftly on to the next item of business.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to introduce the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill [NIA 38/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision about the functions of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in relation to fisheries and inland waters; about enforcement powers in relation to sea fisheries; about penalties and modes of trial for certain offences relating to fisheries, sea fish conservation and the water environment; about aquaculture licensing; about the licensing of the sale of fish and the recovery of expenses for river bed remedial works; and for connected purposes.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to introduce the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill [NIA Bill 39/22-27], which is a Bill to provide for the appointment and functions of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime for Northern Ireland; to amend the law relating to criminal evidence and procedure in cases involving aggravation by hostility, sexual offences and death or serious physical harm of a vulnerable person; and for connected purposes.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to introduce the School Uniforms (Trousers) Bill [NIA 40/22-27], which is a Bill to permit all pupils to wear trousers as part of their school uniform.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call junior Minister Reilly to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 8, which deal with group 1: "Truth Recovery Public Inquiry". The second debate will be on amendment Nos 9 to 15, which deal with group 2: "Truth Recovery Redress Service".

I remind Members that a number of the amendments that have been tabled are linked to one another. Specifically, amendment No 7 is a paving amendment for amendment No 8. Amendment Nos 9, 10, 13 and 14 give effect to a single policy proposed by Mr Gerry Carroll MLA. Amendment No 9 is a paving amendment for amendment No 10. Amendment Nos 13 and 14 are consequential to amendment No 10.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 8.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Ms Reilly: At the outset of my remarks, I acknowledge and welcome some victims and survivors who are with us in the Public Gallery. They have sat through every stage of the Bill, and, again, they have travelled from far and wide to be with us for the Bill's Further Consideration Stage. I welcome the victims and survivors who, again, have made the journey to be with us.

As we begin Further Consideration Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill, with the amendments that were made at Consideration Stage now forming part of the Bill, I thank Members for their engagement with the legislation throughout the process. I particularly thank Gerry Carroll and the Committee for the Executive Office for their engagement with the Department and our officials over the past few weeks.

Collectively, we have been able to refine several of the amendments that were made at Consideration Stage on the public inquiry, which I will now speak to. Eight amendments have been tabled in the inquiry group. Members may wish to make comments and highlight concerns. I will listen to their contributions, and I hope to pick those up and address them in my closing remarks.

I will take amendment Nos 1 to 3 together. They relate to the amendment that was made at Consideration Stage to clause 5, regarding the composition of the inquiry panel. Those amendments have been tabled in order to make sure that there is clarity and consistency in the wording throughout the Bill. They are minor in nature, and I ask the House to support them.

Amendment Nos 4 and 5 relate to clause 17 and cross-jurisdictional matters. The Department has tabled two amendments, which maintain policy intent but better align the language with other parts of the Bill in order to, again, ensure consistency.

I turn to amendment No 6, which also relates to clause 17. The Department appreciates the policy intent, and we want to ensure transparency around reporting where evidence that was sought by the inquiry has not been forthcoming. There may, however, be instances where the inquiry must have some discretion around the naming of information requested but not received. For example, the information may relate to ongoing court proceedings or may identify a whistle-blower, a victim or a survivor. Our amendment therefore provides an element of discretion to the chairperson in that respect.

I now turn to amendment Nos 7 and 8, which are to clause 20. Amendment No 7 is a technical amendment that will ensure clarity in clause 20 so that it flows. Amendment No 8 aims to maintain Mr Carroll's policy intent and provide consistent terminology throughout the Bill, while also recognising that the determination of public interest is an Executive function and not that of an inquiry chairperson. Clause 20, if amended, will ensure that the inquiry chairperson has considerable scope to publish reports in full, including within the two-week period, if considered necessary or appropriate.

That concludes my remarks on the supporting amendments that the Department tabled in group 1. I hope that Members will support the amendments, but, as I have said, I will listen to their contributions and reflect on them in my closing comments.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I will speak to the amendments in group 1 on behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office at Further Consideration Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. I welcome victims and survivors and their family members to Parliament Buildings today, and I put on record the Committee's thanks to everyone who gave evidence and for their continued engagement throughout the process.

The Department's first three technical amendments in group 1 relate to clauses 8 and 10. The Committee appreciates that the changes are technical in nature and are intended to ensure consistency of drafting with other provisions in the Bill, particularly on consultation requirements that apply to members of the inquiry panel.

Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are redrafted amendments that better align language with other Parts of the Bill. Amendment No 6 is a redrafted amendment that seeks to ensure that any implications arising under GDPR, as well as any potential impact on court proceedings, are properly considered and addressed. Amendment Nos 7 and 8 are redrafted amendments that will ensure consistency of language and approach throughout the Bill. That concludes my remarks on the group 1 amendments in my capacity as Committee Chair.

I will now make a few brief remarks as an Alliance Party MLA. I thank the departmental officials for their engagement with the Committee over the past number of weeks on the tidying-up amendments. It has been very useful to understand what has gone on behind the scenes. I put on record that I will be supporting all the amendments.

Ms McLaughlin: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the group 1 amendments, and I welcome the victims and survivors who have joined us today in the Public Gallery, as well as those who are following the debate online.

At the heart of the Bill is the establishment of a public inquiry into one of the darkest chapters in our society's history. For far too long, the experiences of the women, girls and children who were affected by mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries were overlooked completely, dismissed and simply ignored. Many survivors spent years seeking answers and acknowledgement and waiting for the state and wider society to listen to them.

The inquiry that will be established by the legislation is an important step towards addressing that legacy. It will provide an opportunity to establish the facts, to hear directly from those affected and to examine how institutions and public authorities failed some of the most vulnerable people in society.

The amendments in group 1 are largely technical and tidy up the wording in the Bill. They are, however, important for ensuring that the inquiry can carry out its work effectively. In particular, I welcome the provisions to strengthen the inquiry's ability to seek evidence and information, including from organisations and individuals outside of Northern Ireland. If the inquiry is to command public confidence, it must be able to follow the evidence wherever it exists. Equally, the amendments that relate to reporting arrangements and transparency will help ensure that the inquiry can operate independently, while maintaining public trust in the process.

For survivors and families, the inquiry is not simply an administrative exercise. For many, it represents the first genuine opportunity to have their experiences properly heard and examined. That places a significant responsibility on us all to ensure that the inquiry is given the tools that it needs to do its work thoroughly and effectively. While no inquiry can undo the hurt that was caused, it can help establish the truth, provide answers for families and contribute to further understanding of what happened. That is why it is so important and why we will support all the amendments in group 1.

Ms Murphy: At the outset, I declare an interest, as my mother previously resided in a mother-and-baby home that is listed in schedule 2 to the Bill.

Before I address the group 1 amendments, I pay tribute to the victims and survivors whose experiences have brought us to this point. I know that many are watching, and some are with us in the Public Gallery.

I welcome the group 1 amendments, which will strengthen the Bill's truth recovery elements. In particular, I welcome amendment Nos 4 and 5, which will enhance the inquiry's ability to seek documents, records and evidence from outside this and other jurisdictions. Throughout the Committee's scrutiny, survivors highlighted concerns about records being held beyond this jurisdiction and the difficulties that they had faced in accessing information about their lives and experiences. The amendments recognise that reality and help ensure that the inquiry can follow the evidence wherever it leads it.

I also welcome amendment No 6, which provides for the recording and reporting of instances where documents or other pieces of evidence are not provided without reasonable excuse. Transparency will be critical to the credibility of the entire process. Survivors deserve to know not only what evidence has been made available to the inquiry but where efforts to obtain information have been frustrated or, in some cases, refused.

Amendment No 8 will give the inquiry chair greater flexibility to publish reports earlier, where necessary or appropriate. Survivors have waited far too long for answers. Where findings are ready to be shared, unnecessary delays should be avoided. Amendment No 8 will help ensure that information can be made available in a timely manner and where it is in the public interest to do so.

Taken together, the amendments strengthen the inquiry's ability to establish the truth, secure relevant evidence and provide survivors with the answers and accountability that they have sought and fought for for so many years. For those reasons, we will support all the amendments in group 1.

Mr Brett: On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I support amendment Nos 1 to 8, which stand in the name of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. At the outset, I join colleagues in paying tribute to victims and survivors for their continued engagement and bravery during the process.

At the heart of amendment Nos 1 to 8 is truth recovery, justice and ensuring that what people have fought for for many years is finally delivered. I pay tribute to junior Minister Reilly and junior Minister Bunting, who have spent considerable time since Consideration Stage engaging with victims, survivors and officials to ensure that, today, we have the strongest possible legislation before the House. I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Executive Office Committee and Member for South Belfast, Mrs Bradshaw. Despite the difficulties of seeking consensus among the Committee on occasions, she chaired the proceedings diligently. I thank all my colleagues; while we did not always agree, we disagreed respectfully but with a shared aim of delivering the best possible outcome for victims and survivors.

I particularly welcome amendment No 6, which stands in the name of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. When Mr Carroll proposed his amendment at Consideration Stage, I raised major concerns about it and the impact that it could have on not just GDPR but potential court proceedings. It is a lesson that, when concerns are raised about legislation, Members should reflect on them. The fact that officials have had to spend weeks undoing the damage that Mr Carroll's amendment did to the Bill is disappointing.

When I raised concerns about it, he simply dismissed them and said that they could be dealt with at Further Consideration Stage. I implore Members to remember that they are voting on legislation that will have real-world impacts, and we should be guided not by emotion but by fact.

We will support amendment Nos 1 to 8.

Mr Dickson: Like my colleagues have done, particularly all those who are members of the Committee for the Executive Office, I acknowledge the bravery and resilience of many of those who have been wronged and failed by those appalling institutions. I trust that the legislation will go some way to redressing their hurt and pain, and that it will provide those people with the space in which to heal and move beyond all that.

I will make reference to three of the amendments in the group. Amendment No 4 concerns the provision of documentation. We, as a Committee, had a very fruitful and lengthy discussion with the Public Record Office about how records are being preserved and can be procured for the public inquiry. I agree with Mr Brett: amendment No 6 is important because it will deal with persons who refuse to provide information or evidence to the inquiry. Amendment No 8 to clause 20 is a tidying-up amendment that will allow the Committee to make interim reports, which will be of benefit to the inquiry process.

Finally, I thank the members of the public and those who have been directly affected for being here today and staying with us throughout the process. I also thank the members of the Committee for the work that has been done to agree the amendments in group 1. I particularly place on record my thanks to the officials and the Bill Clerks, who have been so helpful to the Committee in the very delicate area of work that we have undertaken, and to both junior Ministers for the diligence that they have given to the work.

Mr Gaston: Like the other members of the Committee have done, I start by thanking the victims and survivors who have engaged with the Committee throughout the process. Some of the lived experience that was relayed to the Committee was very challenging to hear. It was certainly heartfelt, and that came across. Those people spoke for not just themselves but for all victims and survivors who have suffered abuse. I also thank those who sent in consultation responses and the vast number of those who attended the round-table sessions.

I will limit my remarks on group 1 to amendment Nos 4, 5 and 6, particularly to the circumstances in which evidence may not be provided because there is a reasonable excuse for not doing so. Amendment Nos 4 and 5 will ensure that one of those excuses cannot be cross-border, and that even information held outside this jurisdiction can be sought, attained and part of the inquiry.

Amendment No 6 refers to requiring the capture of:

Members outside the Committee might ask why such an amendment is necessary. The answer highlights what may prove to be one of the greatest weaknesses in the legislation before us here today: access to records. Throughout Committee Stage, we heard repeated warnings about the condition, accessibility and completeness of the historical records on which the inquiry will depend. I believe that all bar one of the religious orders have engaged with PRONI, which now holds the vast majority of the records. Only time will tell how complete those records are, as people start to come forward to request their personal records. We are dealing with records that, in the majority of cases, predate the digital age, but I want to focus my remarks on the access that we will have to, and the completeness of, the trust records, which are indeed pivotal to the inquiry. What do we know of those? We know that they are dispersed across the five health trusts, with many located in storage across multiple sites in each of the trust areas. Some have been catalogued and some have not. Some have been digitised and some still have not. Evidence presented to the Committee only last week illustrated the scale of the challenge that the trusts face to get their house in order prior to the inquiry.

We are told that the South Eastern Trust has identified and catalogued more than 1,200 historical adoption files, yet many of the associated registers have been assessed as fragile. Nor is the position across the trusts in Northern Ireland consistent, and that concerns me. The state of the records differs from trust to trust and, in some instances, still remains unclear. That is why the Committee found itself discussing matters such as access to records, the preservation of historical documents, engagement with the Department of Health and the need for adequate resources to assist people seeking information about their past. That goes to the very heart of whether the legislation can deliver what many victims and survivors have been promised, because an inquiry can only follow the evidence that exists and can be readily obtained. If crucial documents cannot be located, have deteriorated, are beyond use or were never properly retained in the first place, the inquiry's ability to establish the full truth will inevitably be constrained, and it may prove to be impossible in some instances. That is why amendment No 6 matters so much. The Executive are effectively acknowledging that there will be circumstances in which evidence sought by the inquiry cannot be produced, and, where a reasonable excuse exists for that failure, it is important to have that documented. I fear that, for some victims and survivors, that may become the defining frustration of the entire process. Many have waited decades for answers, yet there remains a very real risk that, once the legislation is enacted, the records needed to provide those answers will not be available. In that sense, there is a danger that legislation has been introduced before the underlying problem with records in the trusts has been appropriately addressed.

I remain of the view that much more work is required to identify, preserve, catalogue and, where possible, reconstruct the documentary trail upon which so many cases will depend. I still believe that there is a case for the records that can be moved centrally to be looked after by PRONI to ensure a more slick and efficient system, instead of each trust having a catalogue and those records being located across a number of locations. Prior to the commencement of the inquiry, all records need to digitised and made readily available so that, when people go looking for them, either for the inquiry or for redress, they are easily accessible and it will not hold up the inquiry or hold up those seeking redress.

Mr Carroll: I will speak briefly on group 1. I am grateful to the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the junior Ministers for working alongside me after Consideration Stage on evidence gathering and doubly affected individuals. I also thank the Executive Office officials for working alongside me, and I thank the Bill Clerk, Stephen. Rather than wasting people's time, people worked with me to reach a common position, and I think that is what is done regularly in the House, so I take a slightly different view to the Member for North Belfast, but maybe that is not surprising.

I have some questions on amendment Nos 6 and 8, Minister. I think that it is Minister Reilly who will be winding up. Hopefully she can answer these today or through correspondence, and I thank her for her recent correspondence. I will begin with amendment No 8. My original amendment on the inquiry chair being able to publish reports in the public interest was about independence. The revised amendment appears to remove the ability to publish at any time and ties publication more closely to ministerial agreement. Can the chairperson of the inquiry still publish information where they believe it to be in the public interest but where Ministers may say no or prefer to delay? Minister, I would appreciate an answer to that in the winding-up speech or in writing.

I move now to amendment No 6. The original amendment placed a duty on the inquiry to report non-cooperation. The revised amendment says that the chairperson may report if they consider it "appropriate". In some ways, that could be seen as a sensible safeguard in cases of statutory exceptions and reasonable excuse provisions — that was stated by Members and the Minister at the previous stage — but some would say that it could weaken transparency and reporting more broadly. Any clarity and further information on that would be useful. I am happy to support the amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech.

Ms Reilly: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. I know that it was quick and that this is a technical tidy-up, but I thank everyone for the work that has been going on over the past couple of weeks to get us to this point.

As we conclude the debate on the first group of amendments at Further Consideration Stage, I ask Members to support all eight amendments. Everyone who has spoken has indicated that they will. The purpose of the amendments is to make sure that the Bill is as strong and effective as possible.

I will pick up on some of Gerry's comments. He talked about amendment No 8. I reiterate that we are fully committed to the transparency of the inquiry. It is recognised that the intent of the previous amendment was to promote transparency. We have retained that element, but the consideration of "the public interest" is a matter for Ministers rather than the chair. In clause 20, the chair already has broad scope to report fully and independently, and, under clause 20(4)(a), is required to consider the extent to which withholding material might inhibit the allaying of public concern. I hope that that addresses the Member's concerns. If there is anything outside of that, I am happy to follow it up with him.

I reiterate that, as Ministers, we have sought to listen carefully throughout the Bill's passage, recognising the importance of getting it right.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. A Member talked about our having to stick to facts and removing emotion from the debate. I absolutely agree that we need the Bill to be good legislation that will stand up and deliver for people, but we absolutely should not remove emotion from the debate. The lack of empathy, emotion and care for women and their children is exactly what landed us here. If there had been more care, emotion and empathy, those women and their children would not have had to fight for the past however many years. I cannot even say how many years: some people have fought for 10 years; others for 20 or 30 years. They should never have been in that position. That is exactly what we need to have today and every day that we work on the legislation: empathy, emotion, understanding and care for the women and the adopted children.

Ms Reilly: I thank the Member for that intervention. That further highlights the entire process of the passage of the legislation, and it further highlights the importance of Committee Stage in particular, when there is the opportunity for the gathering of evidence and for victims and survivors to come in and share their lived experience. That is important, particularly when we are going through legislation. We can talk about legislation, Bills and policy — sometimes it is words on paper — but we have to get the lived experiences of the victims and survivors who have gone through it. That is why we have sought to listen at every opportunity throughout the passage of the Bill. We want to get it right. We want to get it right for all the victims and survivors who have suffered immeasurably. Our focus has always been on making sure that the Bill is in the best possible shape, and we remain committed to that objective.

This group of amendments is more on the technical side, as I mentioned, and there is another group to come, but Final Stage will be our opportunity to reflect on the full significance of the legislation and to acknowledge all those who have helped us get to this stage. I very much welcome our getting to Final Stage, although I know that we have another group of amendments to go. That concludes my remarks on group 1. I ask everyone to support the amendments in group 1. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I remind Members that amendment No 7 is a paving amendment to amendment No 8.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We now move to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 9 it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 10 to 15.

I call Mr Gerry Carroll to move amendment No 9 and to address the other amendments in the group. Gerry, over to you.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move amendment No 9:

Mr Carroll: I ask Members to support the amendments in my name as I go through them. The aim of amendment Nos 9, 10, 13 and 14 is to extend redress to mothers and children who were admitted to workhouses. That is being achieved by tying entitlement to clause 4(1)(b). The redress scheme is, of course, admissions-based. It seeks to recognise a specific misogynistic discrimination faced by unmarried mothers and their children. In my view and that of many others, the current exclusion of workhouses from the redress scheme creates an unacceptable hierarchy of victims and goes against the spirit and aims of the Bill that the Ministers and the Executive more generally have introduced. That has been highlighted repeatedly by the truth recovery independent panel, including at its most recent evidence session at the Committee about two weeks ago.

Any redress scheme that creates such a hierarchy of victims by excluding workhouse victims is fundamentally flawed and not trauma-informed. Even as it stands and as could be the case for any legislation, the Bill could be subject to legal challenge and a fight through the Supreme Court or anywhere else. Thousands of women and children had traumatic experiences in workhouses. That trauma was a direct result of state, societal and religious attitudes of the time. It is only fair that that omission is rectified, and we have a chance to do that through the amendment.

I know that a communication is circulating to Members advising them basically not to support the amendment, and I will address some of the issues in that. As I said, any legislation is subject to legal challenge, including through the Supreme Court, if people deem it necessary and get the necessary support, and there is scaremongering going on in relation to the amendment.

The Bill, by design, already identifies a workhouse cohort for the purposes of the inquiry that includes pregnant women and women who gave birth in workhouses and their children. If TEO — I say it respectfully — is concerned that the category in the amendment may be too broad for redress, that is more of an argument for having a more precise eligibility test than for excluding the workhouse cohort of unmarried mothers altogether. In general, drafting can be improved and finessed, but exclusion, if accepted, is a policy decision, and people are upset, annoyed and angry about that, to put it mildly. It is an obvious point that any Minister, a Member from any Executive party or any other Member who thought that the amendment was too broad could have proposed an alternative, but they decided not to do so. Concern about the drafting of the amendment is not a reason to exclude a cohort of people.

On the equality argument, my understanding is that the Equality Commission has no objection in principle to the identification of a specific cohort where there is a rational basis for doing so. Where there is evidence of a particular experience or harm in a general sense, legislatures routinely distinguish between groups. Why can that not be done through my amendments to the Bill? The exact purpose of a redress scheme is often to identify and recognise a specific group that experiences a particular harm, abuse or other form of ill treatment. The existence of married women in workhouses does not prevent the Assembly recognising a distinct cohort of unmarried mothers if there is a legitimate concern.

An argument is doing the rounds that the amendment could jeopardise the Bill: I reject and challenge that. The issue is not new, having been raised with Members for some time. If the Executive believed that problems existed and that the amendment could have been drafted differently — I say this respectfully — Ministers could have tabled another amendment, but they did not do so. The fact that concerns remain unresolved about people from workhouses being excluded from the scope of the Bill strengthens the argument for, rather than against, an amendment.

I am happy to support amendment No 11 on posthumous claims, because 1953 marks a significant improvement on 2011, which was a completely arbitrary date and a slap in the face for so many families.

I am happy to listen to Members' contributions, and I will do my best to respond to as many questions as I can.

Ms Bradshaw: I will first address the Committee amendment in the group and then summarise the Committee's engagement on the other amendments.

The Committee tabled one amendment — amendment No 11 — to clause 32, which sets out who is entitled to a redress payment. It is an extremely important provision in this significant Bill. I remind the House that the response to the Committee's call for evidence demonstrated strong opposition to the proposed posthumous cut-off date of 29 September 2011. Throughout Committee Stage, victims and survivors consistently advocated either an earlier date or the removal of the cut-off date entirely to ensure a more inclusive approach. The exclusion of posthumous claims prior to 2011 was described as arbitrary and unjustified, creating harmful hierarchies among victims and survivors.

Following the Committee's amendment to remove the posthumous cut-off date not being selected for debate at Consideration Stage, the Committee sought, ahead of Further Consideration Stage, legal advice on the robustness of an amendment that would change the date of 29 September 2011 to 28 April 1953. On the basis of that legal advice, the Committee was confident that an amendment to clause 32(6)(b) to change the posthumous date from 29 September 2011 to 28 April 1953 would be legally secure. Noting the Speaker's remarks in the Assembly on Tuesday 2 June, the Committee wrote to the Department on 3 June to ask Ministers to consider tabling an amendment to that effect. As the Executive Office did not subsequently table an amendment on the posthumous date, the Committee considered that it had an obligation to table such an amendment itself.

The Committee chose the date because it reflects the posthumous eligibility cut-off date used in the redress scheme for survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA). The date was adopted on the basis that it marks the point at which concerns were first formally raised by the Northern Ireland Government's Ministry of Home Affairs through a memorandum about conditions in such institutions, which were therefore known to the state. Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice also proposed the date as an alternative, should the posthumous cut-off date not be entirely removed, as it aligns with the April 1953 precedent set by the historical institutional abuse inquiry.

The Committee formally agreed the amendment at its meeting on Tuesday 16 June 2026. The DUP opposed the change in the posthumous date, and it is for those members to set out the reasons for their position. The amendment tabled by the Committee strengthens the clause by broadening the eligibility for a redress payment. By addressing the issue of a posthumous cut-off date, the amendment ensures that individuals who may have been excluded previously are now potentially included in the scope of the redress scheme. That will result in improved fairness and widen access to redress for victims and survivors and their families. In particular, the amendment responds directly to the concerns raised by victims and survivors, thereby promoting a more inclusive and fair approach. It helps to ensure that entitlement is not arbitrarily limited by a restrictive date, especially in circumstances where the harms in question were known to the state for a much longer period.

The Committee welcomes the majority of the amendments in the group, which were tabled to offer tidying-up refinements or alternatives to a number of Gerry Carroll's successful amendments at Consideration Stage. The Committee wrote to the Department on 3 June 2026 about those amendments and asked the Executive Office to engage further with the Member on the technical wording and to consider how the amendments might be strengthened in line with the policy intent. The Committee held an additional meeting on Tuesday 16 June 2026, at which TEO officials shared the amendments ahead of their being formally tabled. The Committee welcomed and appreciated the responsiveness to that request.

The Committee also wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to seek their views on Gerry Carroll's new amendments to clause 32 and how they would operate in practice if selected for debate and made by the Assembly. In particular, the Committee requested further detail on how the truth recovery redress scheme would differentiate between individuals placed in workhouses for reasons other than pregnancy and those who were placed there due to being pregnant. A response was received from Ministers this morning that raised several concerns about the practicality, fairness and legislative competence of Mr Carroll's amendments. Given that it was received only this morning, the Committee has not been able to discuss or agree a Committee position on those matters. Hopefully, the junior Ministers can speak to the issues in more detail and provide clarity on any concerns raised during the debate.

Finally, I thank again the departmental officials, the Committee team and the Bill Clerk for their work in advance of Further Consideration Stage. The Committee looks forward to the legislation moving one step closer to completing its legislative passage through the Assembly.

I will now make a number of remarks in my capacity as an MLA. I am so pleased that Committee amendment No 11 was selected for debate today. I firmly believe that immeasurable hurt and pain will be caused to the birth mothers, the adult adoptees and their families should the original posthumous date of 29 September 2011 remain in the Bill when it passes into law. Straight after the Consideration Stage debate, along with my Alliance Party colleague Stewart Dickson, I submitted a placeholder amendment for a fresh posthumous date of 1 January 1996 to the Bill Office. In so doing, we wanted to send a signal to the Speaker's Office, the Executive Office and the Bill Office that, for us, the issue was not going to go away. We were willing to work with anyone and everyone to get a fresh date that worked and on which there was broad consensus. I thank all the victims and survivors who have engaged with me over the past few weeks to ensure that they understood the process and why we as a Committee were moving forward with a new date of 28 April 1953. People will know that I did not want to see a posthumous date in the Bill at all. As far as I am concerned, an acknowledgement redress scheme based on admission should acknowledge every pregnant woman and girl and the children who experienced abuse in such institutions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I will read into the record part of an email that MLAs received in the last few days from Mr Mark McCollum. It is such a powerful email, yet it is drafted in such easy language that it allows us all to grasp the full impact that such institutions had on birth mothers and adult adoptees and the cultural and societal norms that existed at that time.

Mr McCollum included a photograph of his mother in his email. His mother was called Kathleen McGuire. He wrote:

I have been working with the campaigners for the past 10 years, and I know that they have been campaigning since long before that. I do not have any statistical evidence for this, but I will make an observation from my engagement with those campaigners and hearing their personal stories. To pick up on the point from Mark's email about his mother dying at 54 years of age, I have spoken to many adult adoptees whose mothers died at a relatively young age. In my opinion, those premature deaths were a direct consequence of the trauma that those mothers experienced in the institutions and the lifelong pain that they have had to endure having had their children taken away from them by such a cruel and heartless system. It is my opinion that the existing posthumous date was not based on trauma-informed policymaking.

Those birth mothers who are still living have been able to fill in and augment for me the picture of how their lives were irreparably changed. The Committee heard from one birth mother who said that she was afraid to take her subsequent children to a GP whenever they were sick for fear that she would be blamed for their illness, deemed to be an unfit mother and have her other children taken away from her. Imagine having to live with such a lifelong mistrust of people in authority — in the healthcare profession, for example — and positions of influence in our communities. The trauma will have lived in every fibre in their body. In every decision that they have taken as a mother, the trauma will live with them forever.

On a slightly lighter note, I had a conversation with a birth mother who was able to get her child back and who went on to marry the father of her child. That is a unique outcome. She had two further children and said that she did not feel that she should be eligible for a redress payment. I said to her that her children got a different version of her as their mother than the one who they might have had, had she not experienced the trauma of living and giving birth in one of the institutions and then had to fight for years to get her child back. On reflection, she agreed.

That is why the posthumous date matters. The redress scheme, whether applied for directly or as a posthumous payment, is there to acknowledge the trauma, which, as I said, will have attacked every fibre of their being, every day since their experience in those institutions. It will have shaped the rest of their lives. We need to look at it in the round: not just at what happened in the institutions but at how that followed them after that. For me, it would be simply intolerable to draw a line between those who are eligible and those who are not.

At the Committee meeting at which we discussed this amendment and our previous amendment, the DUP representatives voted against it. Their votes are recorded in the Committee Stage report and the relevant minutes. I totally respect their democratic right to do that and know the reasons that they are opposed to the new posthumous date, but I appeal to the DUP not to vote against our Committee amendment today. To them I say: you can make your views known in your contributions, but please abstain. Please do not put the amendment to a vote. I believe that we have the numbers in the Chamber to pass the amendment, and I implore the DUP not to force a Division, for it will cause unnecessary pain and hurt to those who are in the Gallery and who are watching online.

Before I move on to Gerry Carroll's amendments, I draw the Executive Office officials' attention to the Bill that Ivana Bachik — I might have mispronounced that.

Mr Carroll: It is Bacik.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you so much. She is the Labour Party TD in the Dáil who has introduced the Civil Liability (Child Sexual Abuse Proceedings Against Unincorporated Bodies of Persons) Bill. It is about compelling religious orders to share in contributions towards redress, such as the HIA redress scheme. They have evaded payment and hid behind legal and financial barriers in not coming forward, and Executive Office officials should watch closely what they do in the Republic to force the hand of those religious orders.

Turning to the amendments in the name of Gerry Carroll, I fully understand and am fully sympathetic to them. He is trying to create provisions whereby a person who was admitted to one of the workhouses and then fell pregnant should be eligible for redress. The fundamental issue is that the redress scheme is based on admission. Women and men, the latter not always pregnant, were admitted to workhouses for a wide range of issues, including destitution and healthcare. Under the proposed redress scheme, it is not possible to distinguish those who were admitted for one from the other. That is why the Committee looked at the issue in great detail. We took a lot of evidence and spent a lot of time grappling with it, but we have left it to the public inquiry to make those recommendations to the redress scheme to expedite the inclusion of any institution, body or facility where the evidence presents itself. The Committee suggested that the inquiry should be conducted in a modular form so that the inquiry panel does not have to wait until the end to get additional people into the eligibility column. I genuinely hope that a mechanism can be found to allow those who had loved ones who were admitted due to pregnancy to be included under a future iteration or phase of the redress scheme. I think that the individually assessed redress scheme should cover those pregnant women and girls who were admitted to workhouses. However, as it stands, the scheme would be open to too many applications and it would be extremely difficult to assess. We have heard evidence from departmental officials and PRONI about how difficult it is going to be under the current system to access records in order to assess whether admission took place. What we need to do right now is focus on the adult adoptees and their children who went through the mother-and-baby institutions.

In closing, I thank the campaigners who worked with me over the past few weeks to try to change the focus of the Further Consideration Stage.

Ms Murphy: I thank everyone for joining us today for the second group of amendments. I will touch on the disappointment and hurt that were caused during the Consideration Stage regarding the amendment on the posthumous eligibility dates that was not selected for the previous debate. I am sure that every Member in the Chamber has been contacted by survivors and family members who expressed their frustration and distress. For many, that amendment represented an opportunity to ensure that all victims and families could access recognition through the scheme. For that reason, I welcome amendment No 11, which proposes a revised date that has emerged as a consensus position. No date will ever satisfy every concern that has been raised. I know that the Committee Chair has just touched on that. Ideally, we would not like to see any date attached to posthumous claims. The amendment represents a genuine effort to reach agreement across the Chamber and, importantly, to ensure that as many victims and survivors as possible can be included in the scheme. It reflects the engagement that has taken place since the Consideration Stage and demonstrates a willingness to respond to concerns expressed by survivors and their families.

I also recognise the intention behind the further amendments tabled by Gerry Carroll. They are clearly motivated by a desire that nobody who has experienced trauma should be excluded from redress. Members across the Chamber share that objective. However, as the Chair of the Committee said earlier, Committee members received correspondence from TEO that addressed some of Gerry's amendments. The correspondence highlighted significant, wider legal and policy concerns that the amendments as currently drafted could create inconsistencies in the Bill. There is also a real concern that such complex changes at this stage could "jeopardise" the delivery of the legislation. Hopefully, junior Minister Bunting will offer some further clarity later in the debate.

Throughout the process, the survivors have engaged with honesty, dignity and, of course, immense patience. I thank them sincerely, including all who contributed to the inquiry process, those who engaged with or made submissions to the Committee and the many who undertook advocacy on their behalf.

For far too long, women who found themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances were made to carry a burden that was never for them to carry alone. At the most vulnerable moments in their lives, they were judged, marginalised and failed by the institutions, the state and society as a whole. The consequences of those failures have echoed across generations. It is my sincere hope that the legislation and the truth recovery and redress processes that will follow can offer some measure of recognition to those who have suffered. No payment can ever compensate for the trauma that was endured, but acknowledgement matters, and it will ensure that the survivors are believed, that their experiences are properly recorded and that society finally states clearly and without qualification that what happened to them was wrong.

Ms McLaughlin: When the Bill was introduced, one of the concerns repeatedly raised by the survivors and their families was about the people who had suffered the same experiences, carried the same hurt and lived in the same institutions but did not live long enough to see this process. The concern has been raised time and time again throughout the passage of the legislation, and it is important for us to listen to it.

Before I turn to amendment No 11, I will briefly address the amendments tabled by Gerry Carroll to clause 32. The amendments are very well intentioned and motivated by a desire to ensure that nobody who suffered injustice is excluded or is not recognised, and I share that objective. However, just after 1.00 pm today, we received a letter from the First Minister and deputy First Minister raising concerns about the legal workability of the amendments, the ability to verify their eligibility and the potential implications for the legislative competence of the Bill. Specifically, the First Minister and deputy First Minister stated:

They went on to state:

A further legal paper was attached to the letter. At this stage, after everything that survivors have been through and the length of time that they have already waited, we should be careful to ensure that the legislation remains robust and workable. I want to hear the precise details of the issues with Gerry Carroll's amendments in the junior Minister's response to the debate. It is important that we get that detail.

Amendment No 11 seeks to address a genuine gap in the legislation. Throughout the process, we have rightly spoken about the survivors. We have listened to their testimony and heard about the lives that have been shaped by shame, secrecy and stigma. We have heard about women who were judged rather than supported, women who were hidden away and women who were made to feel that they had done something wrong rather than that something wrong had been done to them.

We have heard about children and families whose lives were changed forever by what happened in those institutions.

There is another group of people, however, that we need to think about today: those who did not live long enough to see this day, to hear an apology, to see an inquiry established and to see the state finally acknowledge what happened to them. For many families, the original posthumous eligibility date felt deeply unfair, not because they were seeking special treatment or looking for something different but because they simply wanted their loved ones to be recognised alongside everyone else's. I understand that, because this process has never been solely about compensation. If it had been, I do not believe that so many people would have campaigned for so long. The process has always been about acknowledgement and ensuring that what happened is recognised. It has been about ensuring that the shame and stigma attached to those women and girls is finally lifted and placed where it belongs, and it has also been about ensuring that people are not forgotten. That is why amendment No 11 matters. It is not simply changing a date in legislation; it is about recognising that the passage of time does not lessen the harm that was done and that somebody's experience does not become less significant because they died before an arbitrary date in a Bill. It is also about recognising that the families who have fought for years on behalf of deceased relatives deserve to see those relatives included in the process.

I know that there will be discussion about cost, and, of course, cost matters. Public money matters. However, we also have to ask ourselves these questions: what message would be sent if we knowingly left people outside the scheme who experienced exactly the same injustices as those who will qualify? What message would it send to families who have spent years carrying those stories? What message would it send to relatives who have campaigned not only for themselves but for their parents, grandparents and siblings who did not live long enough to receive acknowledgement in their lifetime?

This is not a political issue or an issue that divides communities. Women, girls and families from every background were affected, and there is a shared responsibility on all of us to ensure that the legislation reflects that reality. For many families, this is the final opportunity to see their loved ones' experiences recognised through a redress scheme. The people whom they are speaking about cannot speak for themselves; they rely on others to tell their stories and to make the case that their experiences matter. I believe that, today, we have an opportunity to respond to that. We cannot undo what happened or get the years that they lost back for people, but we can ensure that those who died before vindication are not excluded from that acknowledgement. For that reason, I will support amendment No 11, and I encourage Members right across the House to do the same.

Mr Brett: I pay tribute to the Members who spoke before me for their bravery and for the testimony that they have just given.

First, I oppose amendment Nos 9, 10, 13 and 14 in the name of Mr Carroll. I know that Mr Carroll articulated that he believes that the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in the correspondence that they sent to the Committee today, were engaging in scaremongering. However, the Chair of the Committee rightly articulated the expert-led evidence that we have received to date, particularly from PRONI and departmental officials, about the impact that a late change to the legislation may have on the overall deliverability of the Bill. I do not question that the Member is well intentioned, but, unfortunately, there are no further amending stages after Further Consideration Stage today. Should Members vote for Mr Carroll's amendments, although they are well intentioned, we do not have the luxury of a further Further Consideration Stage to tidy up the Bill and the difficulties that his amendments may create. My party will therefore oppose them.

It is important to read into the record an extract from the letter from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. They do not come at the amendment from a position of political opposition but from the point of view of deliverability. They state:

so late in the process:

I do not think that any Member wants to delay the legislative process further. It is clear that victims and survivors have had to wait far too long to get to this stage. It would be a dereliction of duty for Members to take any action that could delay the Bill or risk its viability.

We will support amendment Nos 12 and 15 in the names of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. I particularly welcome amendment No 15. At Consideration Stage, I flagged the fact that Mr Carroll's amendment No 42 had conflated two processes: that for an eligible relative for the purpose of making a posthumous claim and that for what should happen when an applicant dies during the process. Unfortunately, despite my warnings, Members voted the amendment through. There is, however, an opportunity now for that to be corrected.

I will now speak to amendment No 11. I have been clear and consistent that the date in the Bill is the date that should be used. I have concerns that amending the date risks the deliverability of the Bill, but I recognise that my party and I are in the minority in thinking that. My position has not been an attempt to single out victims or to ignore how deeply unfair some of them believe that date to be, however. I come at this from the genuine position of wanting the Bill to be delivered, and I worry that amendment No 11 would undermine that happening. Although my concerns about, and opposition to, the amendment are on the record in Committee and in the House, given the nature of the amendment before us, the fact that I am in the minority and the importance of the Assembly's sending a clear message, my party will not divide the House on amendment No 11. I do remain concerned about the amendment, but it is not appropriate that we divide the House, given the impact that our doing so may have on victims and survivors.

Mr Butler: At the outset, I want to be absolutely clear that the Ulster Unionist Party continues to support fully the overall purpose behind what is a really important Bill. The experiences of people who spent time in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses are deeply distressing and resonate not only with the victims and their families but, indeed, with the many of us who have sat through a number of the debates on the issues. Survivors and their families have waited far too long for acknowledgment, accountability and redress. It is right that the Assembly seeks to address historical wrongs. I speak as someone who did not sit through the Committee's detailed consideration of the Bill, so I bow to Committee members' experiences, which I have listened to throughout the debate. I have, however, engaged with various people who have been impacted on by what were heinous wrongs.

I will speak first to the amendments that Mr Carroll tabled. I can understand the motivation behind them. Nobody wants to see individuals be unfairly excluded from recognition or redress. I do not doubt for a second Mr Carroll's humanity in this moment. His amendments would, however, represent a significant expansion of eligibility. Increasing the level of payments to £12,000, as happened at Consideration Stage, has already caused a real but understandable additional cost pressure. The inclusion of workhouses now, as proposed by his amendments, would, I suspect, have a very significant financial implication. We would not be surprised at all if the true cost of that was difficult to determine at this point. It is really important that we understand the costs at this point. I fear that there may also be broader equality and legal concerns associated with that proposal, because it has not had time to go through due process and proper scrutiny. In those circumstances, we as a party simply do not believe that the Assembly has been provided with sufficient evidence or analysis to justify such a substantial extension of the scheme at this stage. As I have said, those amendments are, undoubtedly, well intentioned, but they would likely come at a cost of many tens of millions of pounds. As such, we will not support Mr Carroll's amendments.

I want to address amendment No 11. I recognise entirely why the Committee has sought to table the amendment. When looking through the Committee report, I read some really powerful evidence from survivors and advocacy groups regarding the proposed posthumous cut-off date, and I understand the desire to ensure that as many people as possible are included in the scheme. However, amendment No 11 is not a minor or technical amendment. In fact, it would be one of the most important amendments made to the entire Bill, either at this stage, or indeed, the last.

Moving the posthumous eligibility date from 2011 to 1953 would, I suspect, increase the cost of the scheme by a lot of money — maybe tens of millions of pounds. I am sure that the junior Ministers will cover that in their winding-up speeches. However, let us be clear about that. Victims have not been asking for the financial settlement as redress or as justice. It is just a token and an understanding of what they have been going through for decades. As Members in the Chamber, we will need to conclude whether such expenditure is justified. That is a judgment for each of us to make with our respective parties. However, I believe that we should be honest with ourselves and the public about the implications of the decisions that we are being asked to make today. TEO officials have been very clear that the scheme would be demand-led and that costs could increase further if claimant numbers exceed the assumptions that have been made. At a time when Departments across the Executive continue to face difficult choices, whether in Health, Education or other public services, we need to fully understand the full financial implications of any proposal that could add significantly to the overall costs of the scheme.

Our concern is not purely financial. My colleague the Minister of Health has been engaging with the junior Ministers on the experience, and, to be honest, sometimes the real challenges, of survivors in accessing historical records and their personal information. The Committee report highlighted delays, resource pressures and the need for additional investment in record retrieval services. We were told that access to records remains a significant barrier for many survivors and, thus, puts more hurdles in the way of having their day of justice and truth.

If we as an Assembly support amendment No 11, it will inevitably significantly expand the number of potential claims, and there will be real and significant consequences. As I have said, it is not the victims who are pushing for it. That is a fair assessment. If it is passed today, we need to look pretty urgently at what other support we can make available to meet the demand on the archives, record retrieval services, Departments and public bodies. Many of the records that are required to verify claims may, ultimately, sit within health and social care systems that are already under considerable pressure.

We owe survivors more than good intentions. We owe them a scheme that is deliverable and capable of providing timely access to redress. For those reasons, we will not support Mr Carroll's amendments, albeit they are well intentioned. However, we welcome further clarification from the junior Ministers regarding the financial and record-access implications of amendment No 11. My colleague from the DUP said that his party will not divide the House on amendment No 11, and nor will the Ulster Unionist Party. Ultimately, if it is the will of the House to support amendment No 11, we will not oppose it.

Mrs Dillon: I thank everybody who spoke in the debate tonight. I really welcome the fact that Mr Brett has confirmed that there will be no Division. That shows that the empathy and emotion that I talked about is absolutely there. I think that we all feel it. You cannot fail to feel it when you have listened to what affected women and girls and their adopted adult children have been through.

First, I will speak to amendment No 11. Like the previous Member who spoke, I was not on the Committee and was not privy to the detailed work that was done there, but we can all agree that amendment No 11 was the important one for everybody involved, specifically the victims and survivors. For that reason, I welcome wholeheartedly the Committee amendment and the fact that the House will not divide on that it tonight.

That is a positive thing. As Mr Brett said, it shows that we do not want to send any kind of message to victims and survivors that we do not understand what they have been through or that we do not empathise. We do not want to add to the pain that they have already suffered.

I thank the Committee and all those who worked with the Committee, particularly the victims and survivors, birth mothers and their adopted children. They have shared a unity of purpose. It goes without saying that we have all been impressed by that unity of purpose. All the victims and survivors who would not have been impacted on by the posthumous date have been united in saying that it must be delivered, because they understand that, no matter when someone died or was in the institutions, that person's pain and suffering was the same as theirs. That is to be commended, and I thank them all for doing that and being so united in their purpose. That unity has ensured that there is unity in the Chamber among all parties. Thank you very much. I wanted to place that on the record.

I agree with the Member for South Belfast on premature deaths of mothers being a theme. Without a shadow of a doubt, that is directly related in at least some cases to their experience in the institutions and living with the loss of their children. In at least some cases, it may be as a result of how they became pregnant in the first place, because that is a conversation that still has not really been had. There absolutely was abuse, incest and rape. Many of those women were girls. They were children themselves when they went into those institutions, and the question of how they became pregnant was never asked. We have to acknowledge that.

There was no support, care or empathy. Their trauma was carried throughout their lives. For that reason, I believe that the posthumous date of 2011 was particularly cruel and inhumane, because those women and their families would be punished and disadvantaged again. They and their adopted children all suffered in the same way, and they deserve the same recognition. It is about recognising the pain and suffering that they went through.

I agree with my colleague Áine Murphy about the intent of the amendments tabled by Gerry Carroll. I think that, actually, everyone across the Chamber agrees that those amendments are an attempt to do the right thing. Of that I have no doubt. I hope that Gerry understands that I raise my concerns about those amendments with the same intent, which is to always do the right thing on the Bill. In my mind are the women whom I first met over 10 years ago. I understand Gerry's comments that legal challenges can always be brought to legislation, and he is absolutely right about that, but I want to minimise any further delay for those who have campaigned. I met them over 10 years ago, but they have been fighting for much longer than that, and they should not have to wait for one day longer than the first date by which we can make this possible.

We need to pass the Bill as quickly as possible and ensure that we deliver for those women. We are talking about the posthumous date, but, if we take much longer with the Bill, we do not know how many more women or adopted children will not survive to see the day that it receives Royal Assent. I do not want to be responsible for that. For that reason alone, I will not support Gerry Carroll's amendments, but I thank everybody for their work on the Bill and put on the record that those who carried the pain are the ones who have given the most to the Bill, and we all thank them for that.

Mr Dickson: I support the amendments that my colleague the Chair of the Committee indicated. Amendment Nos 9 and 10 were tabled by Mr Carroll for all the reasons that Members have outlined. It is not that there is no concern, sympathy or empathy for the situation regarding workhouses, but I believe that the arrangements in the Bill allow for the inquiry to address those issues, if it is practical for it to do so at that particular stage.

With regard to the posthumous date, I want to do two things. First, I express my gratitude for the hard work that has gone on at Committee and for the deliberations that we had in order to arrive at that date. It is difficult to understand why we had to go through that process in order to bring that situation to a conclusion today. Whatever those reasons were, the discussions in the Committee were always respectful and always caveated with individuals' concerns. I place on record my thanks to Phillip Brett for the way in which he handled the matter. He resolutely opposed the proposal during Committee Stage, but he did so with dignity and reasoned argument. That did not gain the support of the Committee, but he has done a really good thing this evening by saying that he is not prepared to see the House divide on the matter. I applaud you for that, Phillip; thank you very much indeed.

We need also to reflect on the times that people went through and the trauma that mothers and, subsequently, children went through in those homes. I am going to tell the House a story now. I was born in 1950 in Thorndale House, which was one of the homes that is named in the legislation. I was born to married parents, and Thorndale House was a maternity home. It was where you went to have your baby in 1950 on the Antrim Road. My mum and dad went there, I was born and, a few days later, I left with loving parents. However, the cruelty of that situation is that, on the other side of the curtain, the same midwives, nurses and staff were being unbelievably cruel to single mothers. I could not get that out of my head when all this came to me. It dawned on me that I was born in a place where people, through the Salvation Army, were providing Christian care to married mothers but, at the same time, were unleashing unbelievable horrors and mental trauma on single mothers. I found that very difficult to comprehend and understand. That is why I want the inquiry to succeed and why it is vital that it succeeds. That is why it is important for us to see that cruelty in the full glare of a public inquiry. That is why it is important that the scheme goes through without further delay.

Finally, I place on record my thanks to the Committee Chair. You might expect me to do that because she is a party colleague, but, in truth, Paula Bradshaw in particular has expended a great deal of time in engaging purposefully with victims and survivors. She has engaged with academics and all the people around this, and she has developed a tremendous empathy and understanding. She has guided the Committee through the complexities of the Bill, and I have to say that I am immensely proud of the work that she has done as Committee Chair. I place on record my thanks to her: thank you, Chair.

Mr Gaston: I will try to keep my remarks brief this evening. Initially, I will talk to amendment Nos 10, 11 and 12. Fundamentally, one needs to ask what the scheme is for. I will start by looking at Gerry Carroll's amendments. I will read a passage from the letter that has been referred to today, which we received from the First Minister and the deputy first Minister. Under the heading "Legal and workability concerns", the letter states:

Some people might take from that, "Well, there is nothing that we can do for those in workhouses", but I am of the opinion that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are recognising that there was a cohort of people in the workhouses who should fall under the scheme. Let us face it: go back to the genesis and the very heart of the scheme. What was it all about? Why was it designed? I will read another paragraph:

Mothers in workhouses experienced the very same trauma. They experienced the same treatment as those who will be eligible for redress under the legislation that we are passing, but they will be treated differently.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I draw his attention to the large ledger that the Committee saw when we visited PRONI headquarters. It was a huge book that gave all the details. One column stated why people were in institutions. The vast majority were there because of "destitution". That was the only record, you will recall, Mr Gaston. How could the officials who administer the redress scheme be in any way able to differentiate between people who were pregnant and those who were not? Very few records related to pregnancy.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Chair for her intervention, which brings me nicely to the 'Truth, Acknowledgement and Accountability' report. My understanding is that, when the independent panel was last before the Executive Office Committee, panel members said that it was possible to distinguish between married and unmarried mothers in workhouses. The testimony on page 4 of the report states:

I am not taking away from the Bill that we have been working hard on and that has nearly reached Final Stage, but that testimony tells me that there is a cohort of people who are not included. If this is a standardised payment that is intentionally designed to acknowledge that particular historical injustice, we have not got everybody. Those who were in the workhouses should be included.

As we move forward, therefore, I am minded to back Mr Carroll's amendments. More work could and should be done, and, in light of the letter that came to Committee members today, at this late stage, I simply do not accept that there is no way of ensuring that the Bill can still progress while we look to narrow down those —.

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I am grateful to the Member for giving way. In light of the things that he has said, does he accept that part of the reason for having the inquiry was to get to the bottom of what happened in the workhouses so that there could be an evidence base and we could take the matter forward from there? The inquiry will inform the response and the next steps. Its purpose is to ensure that all those issues can be addressed in one way or another. Does he accept that and understand the point that I am trying to make?

Mr Gaston: I accept it and understand the point that the junior Minister has made. Indeed, that is why the Chair of the Committee proposed the modular approach, which I agree with. I fully accept that, but, while I am in the position to do so, I am putting on record the fact that, going back to the genesis and the heart of the legislation, it is for an admission-based scheme regarding historical injustices. A group of people who were in the workhouses need to be identified, whether through the inquiry or the amendments, if they are passed today, to ensure that nobody is left out. Let us face it: if those who were in the workhouses are not included at this stage, they will never be included. We will never come back to this issue once we have a second tranche of legislation about the specific abuses that people experienced. Those are my comments on amendment No 10.

Amendment No 11 concerns the posthumous date. Time after time, in evidence session after evidence session, the big thing that was raised by victims and survivors and adult adoptees was the inclusion of a posthumous date. As I said at Consideration Stage, I am of the opinion that there should not be a posthumous date at all, but I welcome the progress that we will make by moving from a date in 2011 to one in 1953. Although other Members have included caveats in their remarks and said that they do not want to divide the House, I have a very clear moral compass when it comes to what I have heard. The scheme should not include a posthumous date, but I will support the amendment to insert the 1953 date into the Bill. That will be significant progress in acknowledging the hurt that has been caused.

I am happy to support amendment No 12 on the basis that, if somebody were born in one of those institutions and was admitted back in at a later date to give birth, that person — it is only a small group of people — should be allowed to receive two payments.

We are making progress. I am disappointed that more has not been done on the workhouses. More work needs to be done in that regard, but I recognise that, because of the modular approach that is being taken and the flexibility that that provides, those people can be included at a later date. I highlight the testimony in that respect. There are ways in which to identify who should be included and who should not.

Like some other Committee members have done, I place on record my thanks to the Committee staff, who faithfully served members' requests. Nothing was too much of a bother; they went away and gathered the information that members sought. I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee. We may have our differences most weeks, but she approached the legislation in a very sensitive way, which was good for the Committee as it allowed it to get its teeth into the Bill. All members, past and present, worked together to try to ensure that we have the best Bill possible. I welcome the debate this evening. I am minded to back Mr Carroll's amendments at this stage, and I look forward to the next stage of the legislation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As we will continue to sit until around 10.30 pm, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 7.05 pm. The debate on group 2 will continue, and the first Member to be called will be junior Minister Reilly. The debate will then be concluded. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

Mr Speaker: I call Gerry Carroll to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Carroll: Is it not the Minister next?

Mr Speaker: Sorry. I call the junior Minister as the penultimate Member to speak.

Ms Bunting: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This group of amendments addresses important and sensitive issues, and I begin by again recognising the lived experience of all those affected, some of whom are with us in the Public Gallery today. Further, I commend Members on the tenor of the debate, given the extremely sensitive nature of the subject.

The Bill has been carefully designed to deliver a fair, consistent and robust redress scheme that is focused on addressing a specific historical injustice. In considering the amendments in the group, it is essential that we remain anchored to that purpose, while being mindful of the practical, financial and deliverability implications of any changes to the scheme's scope.

The intention of amendment Nos 9, 10, 13 and 14 is to make pregnant women admitted to a workhouse and children born in a workhouse eligible for a redress payment of £12,000. We are in no doubt that the amendments are well intentioned, yet we must be clear that, should they pass today, the Bill would be derailed and essentially wrecked. That is not the intention behind the amendments, but such would be the scale of the change to the scheme's scope and such would be the departure from the policy that has been consulted on and developed over a number of years that the scheme would require fundamental reconsideration and be potentially unworkable.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the junior Minister for giving way. I was speaking to a number of the victims and survivors during the break, and some of them are genuinely concerned and distressed that pregnant women and girls who went through the workhouses are not included. Can you give a commitment tonight that, in the instructions to the inquiry panel, consideration will be given at a future stage to those women and girls being included?

Ms Bunting: I cannot give a guarantee, but I can reassure the Committee Chair and those who are watching that all of this will be consulted on. There will be a chance for people to feed into that, and, more than that, the Assembly will again have its say, because all regulations will be passed by the affirmative resolution procedure. I trust that that provides some reassurance.

With regard to what I have just said, I must outline for Members that, most significantly, there are material risks in relation to legislative competence, equality considerations and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. That would result in substantial delay to the Bill and thus the delivery of redress. In the worst case, it could place the legislation at risk and, ultimately, jeopardise the opportunity to provide long-overdue recognition and redress to victims and survivors.

I want to be unequivocal. The experiences of pregnant women in workhouses and those of their children, now adults, are an important part of the process. That is why they are within the scope of the inquiry, which is the proper space for those experiences to be fully examined. The standardised payment scheme, however, has been deliberately designed to recognise a distinct historical injustice, namely the impact of a system of gender-specific institutions with undeserved shame and stigma attached to admission. That is why the redress scheme focuses on mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. Those were not general welfare settings but institutions rooted in societal judgement of women, and there were no equivalent provisions for men.

Workhouses were fundamentally different in purpose and design. They were established to provide relief or support to the poor and destitute of both sexes, including children, the elderly and those with disabilities. They formed part of a broader social welfare framework rather than a system that was specifically targeting women and girls. It is certainly important to acknowledge that experiences in workhouses could be very difficult and that stigma could attach to those who entered them, but the key point is that the stigma was not unique to one group. It applied more broadly to all who required that form of relief and, regrettably, to poverty itself. That is a different context from the gender-specific shame and stigma that the scheme is intended to address.

Mr Carroll's amendment, while seeking to recognise those difficult experiences from 1922 to 1948, would fundamentally alter the scope and intent of the scheme and, consequently, the nature of the Bill. For context, workhouses formed part of a broader system of public provision, and many operated as hospitals, providing healthcare to local communities. Those infirmaries were later absorbed into the National Health Service, following its establishment in 1948. That wider healthcare role is important. It means that thousands of women will have given birth in workhouse infirmaries, the majority of whom returned home shortly afterwards with their children. Under Mr Carroll's amendments, any pregnant woman admitted to a workhouse and every child born there would potentially become eligible for redress. What basis is there to positively discriminate?

Members will understand that that would represent a significant and unintended expansion of the scheme far beyond those whose experiences it was designed to recognise. As Members are aware, the Bill was drafted to be deliberately inclusive within its defined scope. It takes an admissions-based approach without requiring an assessment of individual experience. As outlined in the equality impact assessment, it is difficult to justify providing redress to one group solely on the basis of their admission to a workhouse, while excluding others who may have had similar or worse experiences in the same place. Doing so risks not only creating inconsistencies but undermining the fairness of the scheme and the fundamental competence of the Bill.

A further issue is that Mr Carroll's amendments do not provide for posthumous payments to eligible relatives of deceased victims and survivors associated with workhouses. At this stage, it is unclear whether that was intentional or an unintended consequence of the drafting, but the effect could be unequal treatment of surviving family members under the Bill. I caution that Further Consideration Stage is not necessarily the time to introduce such significant policy changes. Please bear in mind that there will be no further opportunity to amend the legislation before it is enacted.

In short, the amendments cause us genuine concern. There is a real risk that they could have significant consequences for the Bill, including major delays if questions of legislative competence require referral to the Supreme Court or, worse, unintentionally wreck the Bill. That is not the fair or right way forward, and therefore we cannot support the amendments. They would prove hugely detrimental, and we ask the House to oppose them.

I would like to address the proposed amendment to move the posthumous eligibility date from 2011 to 1953. Without question, that is one of the most complex and sensitive parts of the Bill. It is important to be clear at the outset about the role that posthumous dates play in state redress schemes. They are not arbitrary. They are a standard feature in schemes where posthumous claims are allowed and are generally linked to a clear moment of state recognition, whether an announcement, an apology or another significant step towards acknowledgement and accountability. For example, the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme is anchored to the Stormont House Agreement of 2014. In the Government of Ireland's mother-and-baby institutions payment scheme, the posthumous date is tied to the formal state apology, which was issued in 2021.

When the policy proposals were consulted on in 2024, the proposed posthumous date was 15 November 2021, the day when the Assembly accepted the truth recovery design panel's recommendations, which included the establishment of the redress scheme. Following the consultation, however, the date was moved further back to better reflect the beginning of a process of formal state acknowledgement leading to the redress scheme. The Executive-agreed position of 29 September 2011 is taken from the announcement of a public inquiry into historical institutional abuse. That moment led to the birth mothers' campaign for inclusion in the inquiry and UN bodies' recommendations for redress for those who had been harmed in Magdalene laundries and similar institutions. Crucially, that date also represents the earliest point at which it is reasonable to say that an expectation of redress could have been formed. The date provides a clear and principled anchor for the scheme grounded in state action rather than retrospective interpretation of historical events. We fully recognise that that date has been difficult for many families, particularly for those whose loved ones passed away before that point. That disappointment is understood, and work is ongoing with victims and survivors to ensure that there are meaningful and appropriate ways to commemorate those who are no longer with us beyond financial payment alone.

We understand that the Committee's proposal to move the date to 1953 is well intentioned. We also carefully considered alternative posthumous dates and approaches, including international examples, but all carry different risks. We understand that the Committee amendment reflects the 1953 date used in the historical institutional abuse redress scheme. That date flowed from an inspection report on the Sisters of Nazareth children's homes. It is important to note, however, that those institutions are not relevant for this scheme. It also sits uneasily alongside other contemporaneous findings in the inspections of institutions that are in scope. That illustrates the difficultly of selecting a single historical moment or document and applying it uniformly across a complex and varied institutional landscape. More broadly, 1953 does not represent a clear point of state acknowledgement or a moment when an expectation of redress could have been reasonably formed. Thus, it does not provide the same foundation as the 2011 date and those used in other jurisdictions.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. I take into account everything that she has outlined and totally understand where she is coming from, but will she agree that just because the state failed to acknowledge those women and their children, just like it failed to look after them, that does not mean that they should not get recognition and acknowledgement because they happen to have passed away? Many of them knew that what was done was wrong. They just had not yet got the state to admit to that.

Ms Bunting: I fully understand the point that the Member makes. They are incredibly sensitive issues, but I must outline for the House, for the record and for those who are with us the rationale behind the 2011 date and why the Executive agreed that date. It is fundamental that people understand why. Did the state fail in many ways? Without question. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on me to outline why we went for 2011 and why it is important. It is vital that that rationale is on the record for full understanding.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the junior Minister for giving way. The date in 1953 that we came up with relates to inspections of children's homes. Does the junior Minister agree that some of the pregnant girls who were admitted to mother-and-baby institutions were also children and that the state should have had a duty of care towards them to ensure that the institutions that they were in were fit for purpose and that they did not experience abuse or harm?

Ms Bunting: It is clear that nobody in any of those institutions should have experienced abuse or harm; that is the purpose of everything that we are doing. It is repugnant that people who were placed in those institutions for safety and care were treated abominably, that we are in this situation today and that these people have to live for the rest of their lives with what happened to them and to their deceased mothers. It is repugnant in every way. I concur that nobody should have had to face such abuse and treatment in places where they had been put for care and shelter. It is astonishing for all of us to consider, and it is to the shame of the state in those days.

For the benefit of the House, and to be absolutely clear, no other scheme in the world has used such an early date — the 2011 date — in combination with an admission-based scheme. That means that there is no established precedent for operating a scheme on this basis. It would significantly increase the number and complexity of posthumous applications. As a result, it carries substantial risks for the overall operation, administration and deliverability of the scheme. Using 1953 would add thousands of posthumous applications to the scheme and, more significantly, increase alongside that the complexity of the cases. That would inevitably result in longer processing times and potential delays for victims and survivors who have already waited too long for redress.

By way of explanation, the further back eligibility extends, the more difficult it becomes to verify claims, to locate records and to establish family connections. It is a question not simply of volume but of the nature of the cases that the system would need to handle. There would also be cost implications, which must be raised with the House. Extending the scheme in that way would increase costs by an estimated £22 million in redress payments, alongside a further £8 million for support services and information retrieval. I will say again that, as elected representatives, we have a responsibility to balance how we address the legacy of the past with our ability to meet the pressing financial demands of the present. What the Executive can do and what they would like to do are not necessarily the same thing. Decisions of this nature will always have financial implications, but I emphasise that cost has not been the primary driver in setting the date. Rather, it reflects a considered and principled policy decision grounded in standard practice and precedent. However, the House should know and understand that the £30 million of additional funding would have to be met from the Executive Budget and thus come from other Departments.

We have engaged with the Health Minister on some of the issues that Mr Butler raised, and it is clear that this amendment could place significant additional pressure on health trusts in particular, as well as on existing services. The issue is not merely one of increasing resources; it is about ensuring that the appropriate resources and the necessary specialist expertise are in place for the benefit of those seeking help and, indeed, their information.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the junior Minister for giving way. I am not a member of the Executive Office Committee. Over what period of time do you think that expenditure would happen? I imagine that it would not be all at once, in one financial year, but over a number of years. Would that be right? [Interruption.]

Ms Bunting: Pardon?

Mr Brett: Demand-led.

Ms Bunting: Yes. The Member is right in that it is a demand-led scheme. Regardless of that, we are aware — there was a debate about it earlier — of the black hole in the Budget, and that picture is not going to get any brighter, so Members need to understand the implications. The funding will not just come from TEO's budget; other Departments will be impacted on. It is important that that is on the record and that Members who will vote on this understand the full picture.

Demand for historical records, family tracing and support services could rise substantially. Social work services that already operate under considerable strain would be required to absorb that increased demand, potentially impacting on the quality and, indeed, availability of support for current service users, including victims and survivors. Most importantly, there is a risk of raising expectations that cannot realistically be met. As eligibility stretches further back in time, the likelihood increases that records will be incomplete or unavailable altogether and that applications cannot then be verified by archival records alone. The scheme has been designed so that where records are incomplete or do not exist, there is flexibility to consider alternative forms of evidence such as signed affidavits. However, surviving family members, the service and the system generally may not always be able to provide the level of detail required to support an application. That creates a real risk of people coming forward in good faith only to find that the system cannot confirm their eligibility. In those cases, the scheme would risk causing further distress rather than providing the recognition and support that it is intended to deliver.

The scheme developed by the Department and agreed by the Executive is firmly grounded in the recommendations of the truth recovery design panel. It has been carefully designed to provide meaningful redress while minimising unnecessary barriers for applicants. The scheme comprises two elements: a standardised payment providing recognition through a straightforward and accessible process; and an individually assessed payment that will allow a person's individual experience to be taken into account. It adopts a compassionate, inclusive and trauma-informed approach and compares favourably with international schemes. For example, applicants are not required to provide detailed or potentially re-traumatising statements about their experiences in order to access a standardised payment, nor are they required to sign a waiver preventing them from pursuing future legal action.

Unlike many other redress schemes, this scheme is also inherently intergenerational in its design, recognising mothers and all children — now adults — who were born in those institutions. A core principle of state redress schemes is that finite public resources should be directed towards those most directly affected. In that context, it is essential that we focus on what can be delivered now to those for whom the scheme was established. Extending eligibility in the way proposed would not only depart from that principle but introduce significant practical, financial and other risks.

We appreciate the sensitive and complex nature of the issue, but, should Members pass the amendment, it is important that they do so with full knowledge of the potential consequences for the scheme and for victims and survivors themselves.

I will now address amendment No 12. This is the Department's tidied-up version of Mr Carroll's amendment to clause 32(9). Moved at Consideration Stage, it relates to multiple payments. During the debate that day, Mr Carroll explained the policy intention behind the amendment, saying:

That is what the House voted to support. However, Mr Carroll's amendment as made provides:

of clause 32 may receive

Members will recall that eligibility under those subsections is split between those who were born while their mother was under the care of a relevant institution and those who were admitted to an institution themselves. The drafting is deliberately broad and inclusive so as to reflect the wide range of lived experiences of victims and survivors. As amended at Consideration Stage, however, clause 32(9) would give rise to what are, we presume, unintended consequences. For example, a child who was born in hospital and admitted to a mother-and-baby institution immediately afterwards would also be eligible for two payments. That would be a significant number of applicants, as most mother-and-baby institutions did not contain a maternity ward, and most women gave birth in hospitals. It is also important to recognise the fact that eligibility for the scheme extends beyond adoptees and birth mothers. Not all those born to women who were under institutional care were adopted, and not all those admitted to institutions later in life were birth mothers. Magdalene laundries, for example, did not generally admit pregnant women. A narrow approach that is based solely on those examples would therefore risk excluding others who had comparable experiences.

Amendment No 12 seeks to address those issues in a balanced and proportionate way. It provides that individuals who are eligible under subsections (2) and (3) may receive up to two payments. The limit of two payments reflects the structure of the scheme, which recognises two distinct routes to eligibility: being born while your mother was under institutional care and being admitted to an institution. Amendment No 12 allows for both of those experiences to be recognised, in cases where they are genuinely separate. It recognises that being born to a woman who was under institutional care may carry a distinct shame and stigma that is separate from the experience of being admitted to an institution later in life. At the same time, the amendment makes it clear that a person who was born in hospital and then admitted to an institution immediately afterwards will receive one payment only. That reflects the view that, in such cases, the shame and stigma arises from a single set of circumstances: namely, being born to a woman who was under institutional care.

Mr Carroll's amendment would also have allowed for a payment per admission to each institution. We have consistently been clear that the standardised payment is an acknowledgement of the impact of the system as a whole and that enabling a payment for each admission would move the scheme towards an open-ended model, thus undermining the core principle of a standardised payment. It would create clear inequalities, with some individuals receiving significantly more than others, based solely on the number of admissions, and could risk further deepening feelings of hurt and unfairness that are already felt by some victims and survivors due to the amendment having passed at Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 12 also allows for up to two posthumous payments to an eligible relative of a deceased person who would have met the criteria under subsections (2) and (3). That approach balances eligibility in the Bill while ensuring that the posthumous payment remains grounded in the entitlement and expectation of the deceased. We ask Members to support that amendment.

Amendment No 15 is the Department's redrafted version of Mr Carroll's amendment to clause 43(2)(f), which was moved at Consideration Stage. Mr Carroll's original amendment conflated two distinct processes: what happens when an applicant passes away during the application process, and posthumous payments whereby eligible relatives of the deceased may make an individual claim for £2,000. As it stands, that risks creating confusion and undermining the coherence of the legislation. The redrafted amendment removes the reference to "eligible relative" and instead provides that the Executive Office may make regulations setting out what is to happen in the event that an applicant passes away while their application is ongoing. That includes provision for a procedure enabling the applicant to nominate an individual to receive a payment, which we believe was the policy intent of the original amendment.

I will address a couple of points that Mr Butler raised about records. He asked me to comment on whether or not there has been investment in relation to records. There has been investment in preservation, access and standardisation via PRONI and the trusts, but we appreciate that there is much more to do, as we said in the debate at the Bill's previous stage. Junior Minister Reilly and I have met the Health Minister on that important issue, and we know that that area has been and will continue to be vital for the victims and survivors. We are working closely with the health and social care trusts to manage the expected increase in requests. Options that are being explored include a specialist team and a central index to make records easier to locate. We have also funded PRONI's work to digitise institutional records, which should improve access and streamline the redress and inquiry processes. I will not go into that further, as Mr Butler is not in his place.

I place on record my thanks to the Committee, Members of the House and, indeed, officials for all their significant work on this very important Bill.

While the amendments tabled by the Committee and Mr Carroll are clearly well intentioned, they would significantly alter the design, scope and, potentially, the deliverability of the scheme, and thus they create the risk of unintended consequences.

The inclusion of workhouses would represent a significant broadening of the scheme beyond its intended scope, as set out at Second Stage and agreed at Consideration Stage. It is not because the experiences of those connected to workhouses are being dismissed — I want to be really clear about that — but because workhouses occupied a different place in the wider institutional and welfare landscape. Workhouses were not directly comparable to mother-and-baby institutions alone. They shared characteristics with a range of institutions, including children's homes, hospitals and other forms of institutional care and therefore must be understood in that broader context.

As we discussed earlier, the inquiry can establish whether mistreatment of pregnant women occurred at a systemic level across the 20 workhouses here and whether their treatment was distinct from other workhouse residents' experiences. That will inform whether further recognition or responses may be appropriate. It is also important to remember that redress is not limited to financial payments. The wider framework includes other forms of recognition and support, including memorialisation, access to records, counselling and support services, all of which play an important role in acknowledging past harms.

Similarly, I want to be clear that the debate on the posthumous date is not a choice between acknowledgement and non-acknowledgement; it is a question of setting a date as best we can in a way that is principled, consistent with other schemes and, ultimately, deliverable. The Executive agreed that 29 September 2011 provides the strongest foundation for doing so. Extending eligibility for relatives back to 1953 would introduce significant practical, financial and evidential risks, with the potential to delay redress for those whom the scheme was intended to support and the potential to raise expectations that cannot ultimately be met. Before voting for the amendment, Members should be fully aware of its potential impacts, assess the risks and, accordingly, make their decision on which way to vote.

The scheme already goes further and is more inclusive than any scheme anywhere else on these isles and more inclusive than international comparators. It forms part of a carefully balanced package of measures developed from the truth recovery design panel's recommendations. The package represents years of engagement, consultation and careful policy development and scrutiny. It seeks to provide not only financial recognition but a lasting legacy of remembrance, understanding and healing. I caution Members to be careful not to put that progress at risk. Today, we have an opportunity to deliver a scheme that is compassionate, inclusive and capable of being implemented without further delay. I therefore urge Members to support the Bill and help ensure that long-overdue recognition and redress can finally be delivered. For those reasons, we ask the House to support the Executive's position on the amendments.

Mr Carroll: I thank Members for their comments. Throughout the debate, the comments have been varied. There has also been a pattern of comments that I will try to address as much as I can. A lot of technical and legalistic arguments have been used for what is a political decision to omit workhouses, and that needs to be challenged. I repeat that the Bill already identifies a workhouse cohort for inquiry purposes, including pregnant women, women who gave birth in a workhouse and their children. The redress payment should therefore be extended to those people. I ask this question: why is redress treated differently? The word "workhouses" is in the title of the Bill. Some Members talked about my amendments being subject to legal challenge, but the legislation itself could be subject to legal challenge if people think that it is not reflective of what is in its title.

There has been some insinuation that my amendments have not been adequately or properly drafted. What Members are effectively saying is that the Bill was not properly drafted, because the amendments in my name take something that is already in the Bill and extend the redress payment to cover it. I am not precious, but, if Members want to say that my amendments are not drafted properly, they are effectively admitting that the Bill was not properly drafted. I do not say that: I just think that there are omissions in it.

The Chair of the Committee said that it may be difficult to assess who will be eligible under the remit of my amendment. That may well be, but it does not mean that we should not do it. It does not mean that we should not pass and implement the amendment. We are talking about trying to correct the historical wrong of institutional abuse, and the best way to do that for this cohort is to back the amendment in my name.

Some Members mentioned complex changes and how the amendment could jeopardise the Bill but have not elaborated on why that would be the case. They have given no concrete examples, and any legislation can be challenged. Members opposite are taking through important Bills on free school meals in summer and the Irish-medium education workforce strategy that I support. However, any legislation can be challenged in the courts, so a blanket letter from the Executive Office on the day of Further Consideration Stage should not be used as an excuse not to support an amendment if Members think that its political aim is right and proper, which it absolutely is. There is an irony, which is not lost on me and others, that the Opposition are spooked and have, unfortunately, used a letter from the Executive Office that was presented on the day of the Bill stage as an excuse not to back the amendments. It is not right, and Members should not be spooked by letters that have been designed to do that. People have the right to do that, but Members should not be taken in by the letter.

The admission-based element is being used as an argument against the amendments. My amendments are admission-based: the women were admitted to workplaces because they were pregnant. Therefore, my amendment is admission-based.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I have grappled with the policy that set up the redress scheme. The HIA redress scheme was a harm-based scheme, and the applicants had to demonstrate the harm that they experienced. The Committee heard in its evidence sessions that the departmental officials deliberated on whether to go down the admissions route or use the harm-based approach. You are right: if we were to include in the scheme the pregnant women who went through the workhouses, it would put an undue burden on the women, girls and adult adoptees who went through the institutions, so it was a balancing act. The Committee got legal advice on whether it could be challenged, and, in many ways, they are policy decisions. While everything can be challenged in the courts, the Department is on safe ground.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for that. They can be challenged, but anything can be challenged. However, her points are on the record.

The Member for North Belfast — he is still here — said that my amendments changed the Bill. The Member knows that amendments are designed to change Bills, and it happens in most legislative processes. There were 150-odd or whatever it is amendments tabled on the Justice Bill. If the Member is against amending Bills, what is the point of Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage? Do we do away with those stages if he is against amendments that are designed to strengthen legislation? Through the Speaker, I will correct the Member. There is another stage for consideration. Standing Order 37A mentions an Exceptional Further Consideration Stage. It is rarely used, but it exists if a Minister needs to bring technical amendments. I will correct the record for the Member on that.

The other Member for Lagan Valley is not here. He was honest about his comments and cited cost as the reason why he would not back my amendments.

Ms Bunting: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member reflected on correcting the record about the Exceptional Further Consideration Stage. In my time here, which dates back to 1998, the Exceptional Further Consideration Stage has happened once, as I recall. I stand to be corrected, but I recall that it has happened once. It is not a standard procedure, and the key to that is the word "Exceptional".

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. It may have been used once or twice, but it exists and can be used.

The Member for Lagan Valley mentioned cost. I disagree with using costs as an excuse not to back policy, especially when we are righting historical wrongs that relate to institutional abuse. However, he was, at least, honest, when others were not. You cannot put a financial cost on justice and doing the right thing, which is what my amendments are intended to do.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Carroll: One second.

I totally agree with everything that the Chair of the Committee said about those being left out because of the posthumous date, but the same applies to the workhouse victims and the people who were abused by an institution. Also, there is no rule that the redress scheme has to be admissions-based with no further eligibility requirements.

I give way to the Member.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. On his previous comment about the Member for Lagan Valley being honest when others maybe were not, I would also like to make sure that the record is very clear on this. The tone of the debate has been really good, and I very much acknowledge that your intent in your amendments is honest and for all the right reasons. When I spoke, I was very clear that I want you to understand that my opposition to the amendments is for all the right reasons. I have been engaging with victims and survivors over many years, and I do not want to see anything that delays delivery or potentially causes a failure to deliver for them. That does not mean that I think that it is OK to exclude anybody. I am genuinely afraid that we will end up in a position in which we have to tell all the people whom we have led halfway up the hill, "Turn and go back down".

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for that intervention. I will come on to those concerns in a second. The point that I made at the start is that some are hiding behind legalistic arguments. I think that there is a financial motivation in some quarters — you can say who they are, and they can take exception to that or not — to not include workhouse families. Mr Butler raised that issue, and that is the point that I am making.

I will come on to the delays that the Member raised. I have been working with victims for a similar amount of time as her. She may have been in the Assembly just before me, or maybe we came in around the same time. I have been working with victims and survivors for more than a decade, and the delay is not because of an amendment in my name or that of any other Member. The delay is because the women have been ignored and failed by the state and the Executive generally. I am not pointing at the Ministers here but at the Executive over the decades. That is where the delay is, not because of an amendment brought by me or any other Member. It is important to acknowledge that.

Timothy Gaston summed the aims of the Bill up well and outlined how my amendment works in conjunction with what the Bill aims to do, is supposed to do and is about. I commend him for that. He also said that, if something is not put in the legislation by amendment at this stage, it will not happen. I have paraphrased what he said, and I absolutely concur with that. I have been in this place for quite a long time, and that is my experience. Despite people's best efforts and best intentions, something has to be in the Bill or it will not be there at all. In many ways, I am used to being fobbed off and patronised, and I am big enough for that, but I ask Members whether, if they do not accept my amendment, they will find it so easy to look victims, survivors and their families in the eye and dismiss them. Despite what Members may think of me or what I am saying today, they should stand by workhouse victims and their families and not fob them off.

An Executive Office letter that came to Members this morning, I think, was referred to. I have had sight of it. It states:

If that does not apply to the women and their children who went through workhouses, I do not know what we are talking about with that description.

Junior Minister Bunting talked about how the amendments might derail the Bill but provided no evidence or explanation on how an amendment could derail a Bill, and, in response to an intervention, she could not — I thought that this was quite significant — give a guarantee to, I think, the Chair of the Committee that workhouse victims and survivors will be included in future redress payment schemes. If people want workhouse women and their children to be in the scheme, they should, in my view, support the amendment. I hope that Members can do that this evening.

Ms Bunting: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it right for the Member to infer that I could not give such a guarantee when he knows well that all of that is based on decisions of this House? It is not for me to pre-empt decisions of the House on what a consultation might be and what Members might approve or otherwise. It would be wrong to give guarantees in that circumstance.

Mr Speaker: That is an intervention as opposed to a point of order, so we will continue.

Amendment No 9 has been proposed. I remind Members that amendment no 9 is a paving amendment for amendment No 10.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 10, as it is consequential to amendment No 9, which was not made.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 13, as it is consequential to amendment No 10, which was not called. Similarly, I will not call amendment No 14, as it is consequential to amendment No 10, which was not called.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call junior Minister Reilly to open the debate.

Ms Reilly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

We appreciate your assistance with progressing the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. Standing Order 39(2) requires:

For that reason, we request that the Assembly agree to the suspension of Standing Order 39(2) in order to facilitate the Bill's completing its passage before the summer recess. There will, of course, be an opportunity for the Assembly to discuss in full issues relating to the Bill at its upcoming Final Stage, if the motion is agreed today. Hopefully, we will debate that on Tuesday 30 June.

Mr Speaker: As no other Members have indicated that they wish to speak, we have no need for a winding-up speech, so I will put the Question. I remind Members that cross-community support is required.

Mr Speaker: As there are Ayes from all sides of the Chamber and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated.

Mr Speaker: We now move to the eighth group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 91, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 98, 100 and 101 and the Minister of Justice's opposition to clause 28 stand part. As petitions of concern have been presented in relation to amendments in group 6, the vote on all subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List and on all further clauses and schedules will not take place until a date after 29 June 2026. Instead of calling the Minister to move amendment No 91, which stands in her name and is the lead amendment of group 8, I call on her to open the debate on amendment No 91 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will speak to amendment No 91, which amends the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 — the 2003 Order — by inserting two articles. The proposed amendment does not change the current legal position; it simply clarifies it by making explicit the provisions for the termination of remuneration that is set out in a remuneration order made under articles 12(3) or 24(3) and applied to anyone who, in accordance with the remuneration order, is determining the amount payable. In adopting that approach, I am withdrawing clause 28 of the Bill, as it no longer reflects the policy intent of reforming taxation of legal aid costs by legislating for legal aid rates and arrangements to be applied by the taxing master.

Approximately 75%, or £90 million per annum, of legal aid expenditure is based on legal aid fees and arrangements set out in secondary legislation made by my Department and administered by the Legal Services Agency (LSA). The remaining approximately 25%, or £30 million per annum, is assessed by the taxing master and paid by the LSA.

The £30 million of public money assessed by the taxing master is not subject to the same level of transparency or accountability as other legal aid expenditure, which is quite rightly more readily available to anyone with an interest in the use of public funds.

Currently, in the High Court and Court of Appeal, solicitor costs are assessed against an hourly rate that is determined by the taxing master. That hourly rate is then uplifted by a variable percentage to reflect care and conduct. For barristers, some fixed fees, which are known as interlocutory fees, are set by the taxing master, but the vast majority of barrister costs are dealt with by way of a brief fee, which is a catch-all fee that is determined by the fee recipient — the barrister — and submitted to the taxing master. Crucially, the brief fee does not detail the amount of time spent or the type of work carried out on the case, nor is there any framework set by the master. The amendment relates to departmental powers to implement a framework that is consistent with 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' and the concepts of regularity and propriety, which are fundamental to the right use of public funds.

The vast majority of legal aid expenditure is determined by the LSA in line with the fees and rates arrangements that are set out in secondary legislation by the Department, and has to have regard to the following statutory criteria: the time and skill required of the persons required to provide the services; the number and general level of competence of the persons providing those services; the cost to public funds; and the need to secure value for money. In addition, when setting any fees and rates in secondary legislation, the Department is required to consult with key stakeholders, including the Lady Chief Justice, the Law Society and the Bar. Importantly, the associated expenditure is subject to economic appraisal, regulatory and statutory impact assessments, and scrutiny by the Justice Committee and the Assembly. It is the intention of my Department, under taxation reform, to retain the taxing master in an assessment role for costs being paid out of the legal aid fund, but applying the fees, rates and arrangements set out in the remuneration order, which is subject to the statutory criteria that I have just set out, subject to appropriate appraisal mechanisms and Assembly scrutiny, as is the case for all other legal aid expenditure. The amendment will clarify the legislative underpinning of that approach, and I commend it to Members.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I will comment on the opposition to clause 28 before moving on to new clause 27A in amendment No 91. The Committee heard from several respondents about the clauses in Part 4, which is the administration of justice section of the Bill. There was a broadly supportive theme to those comments. Clause 28, however, was the exception. I appreciate that the Minister has tabled her opposition to clause 28 standing part of the Bill and has tabled new clause 27A in its stead.

Clause 28 generated a significant amount of written and oral evidence during Committee Stage. For what is a relatively small part of the Bill, clause 28 formed a significant part of the scrutiny that was undertaken by the Committee. I will put some of that on record, as it will help to inform Members' overall consideration of this group of amendments.

Clause 28 focuses on the reform of legal aid taxation. The explanatory and financial memorandum advises that it:

Its genesis was the Public Accounts Committee report from 2016, which recommended bringing the taxation process under greater departmental control in order to make spending more accountable. The Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime felt that that would be an important step in the legal aid system, as the current model is unsustainable. In her view, victims require a sustainable legal aid system that provides fair remuneration for the legal profession. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Committee heard conflicting views from the Bar of Northern Ireland and the Law Society on the one hand and from the Department, on behalf of the Minister, on the other.

The Committee heard at length and in detail from the Bar about why it opposed the clause. It considered that it sought to restrict the independence of the taxing master, who is a judicial appointment performing a judicial function, and who is already legally bound to protect the legal aid fund. The Bar also felt that the measures could put barristers off wanting to take on legal aid cases if they could act in non-legal aid cases where the taxation of costs would still be available, which could potentially result in a two-tier system of access to justice.

The Bar called it:

It pointed out that a separate review of taxation was at an early stage and that, in the absence of information on any alternative measures that would be introduced, the Assembly was being asked to vote on principle only.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will

Mrs Long: The Member has mentioned that the Department was, if you like, on one side, with the Bar and the Law Society on the other. Will he not concede, however, that, on 7 May, the Law Society expressed support for our proposals to introduce hourly rates for counsel, taking the view that, if solicitors can do it and it is good enough for them, it should be applied across the board?

Mr Frew: Yes. I thank the Minister for her intervention, and I acknowledge that there is a difference between the Bar and the Law Society.

The Law Society also expressed concern that clause 28 aimed to remove the role of the court, which would have a significant impact on the independence and fairness of the taxation process. It failed to see how the proposed change could improve accountability and predictability over legal aid fees in relation to the fees of solicitors and said that it would be a significant departure from current practice and could reduce judicial oversight and undermine the fairness and independence of the process.

The Committee had further meetings and correspondence with the Department to seek to gain an understanding of the detail and implications of clause 28. The Department advised that it was not anticipating that changes caused by clause 28 would negatively impact on access to justice for citizens. The restrictions on the ordering of taxation of legal aid costs would only commence when alternative remuneration orders, to be made by delegated legislation, would be in place. The Department added that, with regard to a review mechanism for any new remuneration framework that it anticipated, the taxing master would still have an adjudication role in respect of requests for redetermination of decisions made under the framework, as is currently the case with criminal remuneration in the Crown Court.

In November 2025, the Committee received a policy briefing on the enabling access to justice programme. During that session, the Committee heard that the Department proposed to expedite its approach to taxation reform following a recent increase in fees. The Department proposed to therefore table an amendment to the Justice Bill to make provision for the Department to set legal aid fees and arrangements for the taxing master to apply when assessing legal aid bills. The Committee subsequently received oral evidence from the Lady Chief Justice and the taxing master, Master Moore. Whilst the judiciary does not comment on policy, it provided evidence on the role of the taxing master and what it believed the impact of taxation reform on the role might be. That session was informative and helpful to the Committee. However, as it progressed, it became evident that there was a lack of clarity around the table about whether the amendment that the Department had advised the Committee of in November would make changes to clause 28 or whether it would be a new stand-alone provision. A few weeks later, the Department wrote to the Committee to inform it that the provisions in clause 28 no longer reflected the new policy direction and that therefore the Minister would seek to remove clause 28 from the Bill. In noting that position during our formal clause-by-clause consideration, the Committee agreed that it was not content with clause 28 as drafted, and I put that on the record.

Amendment No 91 proposes a new clause 27A. The text of the amendment that we had been advised that the Minister would table was only received by the Committee on 3 March 2026. We therefore did not have time to consider it in detail or reach a Committee position on it before the end of the Committee Stage. Since that time, in order to help inform Members before the debate on the amendment, the Committee heard evidence from the Bar of Northern Ireland on this further change to the taxation process and, as per the previous views, it is not content. In evidence to the Committee, the Bar described the amendment as a "legislative blank cheque", which I think that we can all agree is a fairly blunt viewpoint. It considers new clause 27A to be skeleton legislation, with little detail on the substance of the changes being made to remuneration or the factors being taken into account when making those changes.

It also commented on the timing of the further amendment and said that it has:

It contended that new clause 27A was:

It reiterated the same concerns about judicial independence and said that a dangerous precedent would be set if:

were to

The Committee also heard from the Law Society on the new clause. It, too, was not content with the proposal. It repeated its earlier view:

It also expressed concern that the new amendment would undermine the role of the taxing master. It advised that it could not support the amendment.

The Department subsequently wrote to the Committee to address the points raised by the Bar and the Law Society. The Department disagreed that it was a legislative blank cheque or skeleton legislation. The Department advised that fees and rates in relation to proceedings in the lower courts are set out in remuneration orders and that claims are assessed by the Legal Services Agency. It went on to say that remuneration in the Crown Court is based on a framework where fees and rates are set by the Department in secondary legislation. It argued that the new clause would simply clarify that fees and rates set out in secondary legislation can apply to anyone assessing legal aid costs, including the taxing master. The Department advised that that would be more open to scrutiny by the Committee, given that recent fees were uplifted without any recourse to the Committee or the Assembly. Before making the necessary remuneration orders —.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that it was not just that the Assembly was not informed about recent uplifts and therefore did not have the opportunity to scrutinise them but that the Department was not consulted fully on the decisions that were made? The taxing master increased the solicitor hourly rate and counsel interlocutory fees by over 50% without any recourse to us on affordability. That is of concern because, under the current arrangements, it is a part of the budget over which there is no control, and there is no transparency in how the brief fees are created. I know that the Committee wrote and asked how brief fees are created. You would fairly describe the answer as "vague".

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention. I hear what the Minister says. I can recall when that issue was raised and when the fee was raised by the taxing master. At that time, I had had a meeting with the Minister and the Deputy Chair of the Committee. The Minister set out her position and the reasons why she was going down the route of new clause 27A. It is fair to say that there has been a lot of confusion about clause 28, new clause 27A, whether we would still have clause 28 and whether the amendment would be to clause 28, but we now have a settled position. It is also fair to say that, while the Minister has been frustrated about the burden that the lift in fee has placed on her budget, it is a bit of a stretch to say that the Minister or the Department did not know that it was going to happen, considering that it had not been lifted for a period and that there have been periods in which the Department has lifted its fee structures. Sometimes, that has taken a long time, and those percentages can be hefty too. Therefore we need to do something better or reform things so that they are done better.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. The point that I make is that, when I bring forward proposals for uplifts in fees, I have to provide justification and a business case to the Department of Finance. The Committee is able to scrutinise my proposals and look at the evidence base on which I make the decisions. That is not the case for decisions taken by the taxing master. You cannot scrutinise or debate them; you cannot look at a business case; and it does not have to be approved by the Department of Finance. It is simply a unilateral decision that is taken outwith the normal structures. That is not to say that we have would have done it any differently had we done it in-house, but we would have had the opportunity to properly scrutinise the evidence.

Secondly, the evidence in itself is important. By setting in place the structures that we are suggesting, we will have evidence of the kind of work that barristers are doing and the time it involves, and that will help to inform future increases in legal aid fees. Frankly, we did not have that evidence from the Bar during our recent discussions and debates.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention. She is right about the vagueness around the detail and how people arrive at their bills. There is no doubt that that has to get better, and we have to be better informed, as do the public, by the way; we are representing the public. The Minister is right about how the scrutiny will go regarding what she has to do with the budgetary processes to go to the Finance Department to get something back for her budget. I get all that, and I agree with her that bringing the process in-house would provide more of an evidence base. However, because fees had not been raised for a long time, the Department was surely thinking that they would be lifted at some point. In addition, if the Department has it in-house — it is a demand-led issue, notwithstanding all the opaqueness about how people come to conclusions on bills — there is a fear that its being a departmental opinion, burden or responsibility to lift the fees means that the budget settlement could come into the equation. That, of course, is the argument set out by the Bar.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will.

Mrs Long: It is not a fear but a fact. Of course, the budget settlement will have an impact on how much we can spend on legal aid and how we set the fees, because I have a duty, as does the permanent secretary in my Department, to live within the budget that is set. That requires us to say how we will remunerate people for doing the work. It also requires us to have a level of transparency and clarity so that the public can properly scrutinise what is being spent.

At the moment, people submit their brief fee. It can be reduced; in some cases, it is reduced by up to 50%. That begs the question of whether we are getting value for money, if people get into a habit of inflating a bill knowing that it will be reduced, but we have no ability to scrutinise that. To be clear, while this was accelerated due to the recent significant uplift, because it brought home the fact that we were going to have a significant additional expense that we had not anticipated, it is not about that. I announced in December 2024 that the enabling access to justice reform programme would reform the taxation process, so it is about expediting that so that we regain control of that portion of the legal aid budget, which is now around £30 million, so it is not an insignificant amount of money. It is only to bring it into line with how we pay solicitors for the same work.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for the intervention. I take her point. That is the dilemma and the question for tonight about what we do. The taxing master in their current role strips millions off those bills yearly, so there is a massive gap between what barristers apply for and what they receive. The question is how we make that more accountable. The Minister has gone down the policy route and is within her rights to do so, but that is the question that faces us.

I will continue with my speech. Before making the necessary remuneration orders, which the Minister hopes to implement by the end of the mandate, consultation with the Lady Chief Justice, the Law Society and the Bar, and, if necessary, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will be required. They would also be subject to public consultation. The Department reiterates that is has only a finite budget. Its aim is to set a rate that is reasonable and enhances accountability for public expenditure, which is not currently available with brief fees. The Committee noted the update from the Department in response to the concerns of the Bar and the Law Society. As I said, however, because of the time that the matter was brought to us, the Committee does not have a formal agreed position on amendment No 91, which is the Minister's new clause 27A regarding the taxing master.

I will now speak in my capacity as DUP justice spokesperson. My colleague Brian Kingston will speak further on the amendments, so I will not take too much longer, you will be glad to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DUP has been frustrated with clause 28: with what it meant; with how new clause 27A was arranged with clause 28; with whether new clause 27A was compatible with clause 28; with what would happen to clause 28; and with whether new clause 27A would be a new clause or would amend clause 28.

When the Committee met the Lady Chief Justice and the taxing master, it became clear that there was a difference between our understanding of clause 28 and new clause 27A, which we had not seen at that stage, and what the Lady Chief Justice thought was coming. I am talking as the DUP spokesperson, and Committee members from other parties will talk about other aspects of the meeting, but it was really uncomfortable to be put in that position. As members of the Justice Committee, we did not know what was ahead of us and what we were meant to be scrutinising in new clause 27A. We had the text of clause 28, as it was in the blue pages, but we were not sure how the Minister was going to proceed with her new clause. We were not sure whether it would be a stand-alone clause or amend clause 28. We now know about the Minister's intention to oppose the Question that clause 28 stand part of the Bill, and we have new clause 27A.

The issue is something that we will have to grapple with tonight. We cannot keep going on as we are. There needs to be further accountability when it comes to legal aid. Our books are qualified every year because of it, so it is a massive issue. I do not know how we will do legal aid better. New clause 27 might be the way, but I am really nervous and concerned about what the regulations might state and mean and how legal aid remuneration will be stepped if amendment No 91 passes tonight.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: Like all regulations, they will come to the Committee. The amendment will give members the opportunity to scrutinise them. Any future uplifts in fees in the taxation space will also be available for the Committee to scrutinise and take evidence on, which you do not have the opportunity to do at moment, because of the way in which that has been outsourced, if you like, outwith the normal 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' requirements, meaning that there is no opportunity for the Committee to scrutinise and thus reassure itself that the uplifts represent value for public money and fair public expenditure. Part of the reason that we are doing it this way, with regulations to follow, is that we already have a regulation-making power. What we are trying to do through the legislation is clarify, with belt and braces, that regulation-making power, which will allow us to move forward so that we can present that information to the Committee.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention. She is right to say that this goes back to the Public Accounts Committee report from 2016. We should all acknowledge that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. What we have to grapple with is whether new clause 27A is the right way in which to go about it. We hear about the independence of the taxing master, and we know about the accountability gap that there is in spending public money. That is what it will come down to tonight, but rest assured, Minister, that we will assess the debate, listen to what you say in your winding-up speech and to what the other parties say and then vote accordingly.

Mr McGlone: At first glance, this group of amendments is ostensibly technical, dealing with taxation procedures, remuneration orders and the administration of legal aid. In many ways, however, the amendments are about access to justice. They may have implications for who gets access to legal representation, for who is able to vindicate their rights through the courts and for whether public confidence is maintained in a system that is independent, transparent and fair.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yep.

Mrs Long: To be absolutely clear, these provisions do not restrict access to legal aid. The qualification for access to legal aid will remain the same. These amendments deal solely with the remuneration under taxation for the practitioners — nothing else. That does not at all change access to legal aid. We would not have brought it through if it would do that without being very clear about that as part of the enabling access to justice reform programme.

The Member also mentioned that the legislation needs to be fair and transparent. The current system is patently not fair and transparent. The Public Accounts Committee said that it was not transparent.

Mr McGlone: I get what the Minister is saying. Perhaps, had I expanded a wee bit further, she would have heard where I am coming from on this.

These are important questions when considering what kind of justice system we want in Northern Ireland. I will begin with clause 28. The SDLP supports the Minister's position that clause 28 should not stand part of the Bill. During the Committee's scrutiny, legitimate concerns were raised about the original clause, particularly its impact on the role of the taxing master and the implications for the independent assessment of legal aid costs. The Committee heard evidence that the taxing master performs an important judicial function. The office provides an independent assessment of costs, balancing value for money for the public purse with fairness to those who provide legal services through the legal aid system. We have heard some further detail from the Minister on that this evening, which is useful, but part of the problem is that we need more detail to see how it may proceed. Like the Chair of the Committee, I have a certain nervousness about the position that we are in. Nevertheless, the evidence presented to the Committee highlighted the fact that the taxing master is already under a statutory duty to protect the legal aid fund and that the current system routinely reduces claims, where appropriate, which safeguards public money.

Again, I get where the Minister is coming from: some may bump it up in anticipation that the original fee will, perhaps, be paid. I get that, but I presume that the taxing master is wily enough to see that coming from way, way down the line. I would trust that to be the case.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yep.

Mrs Long: If you compare the cost of prosecution counsel with what the defence gets paid in cases at the Court of Appeal, falling into the tax cases, there is a multiplier. For barristers, it is a significant uplift. Those who operate within the legal aid system get paid significantly more, with the same overheads and working on the same case, but acting for the defence rather than the prosecution. That cannot be fair. While the taxing master may be wily, it is still against the code of ethics of the Bar and could potentially constitute fraud if, on a routine basis, somebody were to submit inflated bills that then need to be reduced. There is some evidence that a small number of counsel may be doing precisely that.

Mr McGlone: You hit the nail on the head, Minister: if it is fraud, it is fraud. I am sure that that could lead to a situation where people are investigated and debarred for commission of fraud. I would trust that, if there were such cases, that would be done. The Law Society is very rigorous in matters of ethics and how professionals perform their duty.

Nevertheless, where reforms affect or may affect independence, it is entirely appropriate that members proceed with caution. For those reasons, we agree that the original clause 28 should not stand part of the Bill. However, that does not mean that we are persuaded by the replacement clause that is proposed by amendment No 91: new clause 27A. We are getting back into scrutiny here. We are picking up bits and pieces of information that would, perhaps, have been useful to hear about at Committee Stage. As the Chair said, we received clause 27A on 3 March. Indeed, one of the recurring themes throughout the Committee's consideration of the Bill was concern about the scale and late timing of the ministerial amendments. This proposal is, perhaps, one of the clearest examples of that concern. The Assembly is effectively being asked to replace one significant legal aid reform with another at a significantly late stage of proceedings. I am not saying that one does not have to be adjusted or changed, but, if change is to happen, we want to make sure that it is done right, that it is done well and that it is done in conjunction with the professionals who operate the system at the moment. That is very important. Fairness, openness, transparency, and how we achieve that, are vital.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Sure, Minister.

Mrs Long: In developing the proposals, we took account of the feedback that was received from the Law Society and the Bar Council. We also engaged with the Lady Chief Justice and the taxing master. To be clear, the Department already has those powers. What we are seeking to do in the amendment is to formalise that in primary legislation to allow us to make the regulations that will come to the Committee. Even if the Assembly does not agree to put those in the Bill, we will still have to look at reform. We believe that we have the powers to do so, but we felt that, on this occasion, given the likelihood that there will be a challenge, it was better to do it via an amendment to the Bill. It is not something that we entered into without consultation and engagement with the profession or with the taxing master and the judiciary more widely.

It is an important point, though, that, as the Member will know, we often raise queries about our accounts with the LSA, and much of that relates to the parts of our accounts where we cannot detail where the expenditure has arisen.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that, Minister. I, like other Members, would prefer to arrive at a comprehensive resolution that is workable and doable and that has been achieved by dialogue. From what I have heard from the evidence taken at Committee, I do not think that we are anywhere near the point of reaching an accommodation that is workable, doable, open and transparent and that achieves fairness in the system and access to justice for the people who most need it. When dealing with issues as important as legal aid and access to justice, that should concern all Members.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. Can he outline how he would prove fraud when there is no fee framework?

Mr McGlone: Issues around fraud, as the Member will well know, are matters for the police. When there is an issue such as that, it would be reported to the police and investigated by them.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mrs Long: My colleague asked a really pertinent question. If there is no fee framework and there are no means to determine how many hours were worked, at what level and on what issues to constitute the brief fee, how could fraud possibly be proven? It would literally be putting a finger in the wind to decide the brief fee, and then the taxing master would look and say, "Does it seem high? Does it seem low?". That is fine for entertainment purposes, but it is not good for accounting and public money. If people could literally pick the brief fee at will and submit it and rely on the taxing master to either lift it or drop it, we would be in a situation where there would be no clarity, and proving fraud would be incredibly difficult unless you had a pattern of information where somebody was consistently putting in bills that were being reduced. Even then, it would be difficult to prove.

Mr McGlone: Again, I hear what the Minister is saying, but it was not me who raised the issue of fraud; it was her good self. I would have thought that, if we were coming here this evening to discuss issues of fraud, the role of the police and others would have been given some consideration.

Nevertheless, we have all seen the consequences of rushed reform, incomplete scrutiny and legislation that reaches the statute book before key questions have been properly answered. Too often, Members find themselves returning months or years later to correct unintended consequences, and we have been here in this mandate discussing stuff that happened in the previous mandate that was rushed through at the last minute.

Closing off loopholes or addressing concerns that were raised during scrutiny but never fully resolved is not good lawmaking. The purpose of Committee scrutiny is not to delay reform or to frustrate progress; it is to ensure that, when change is made, it is robust, evidence-based and capable of standing the test of time or, indeed, court cases. That is particularly important when dealing with issues that engage access to justice. The concerns raised by legal stakeholders, including the Bar of Northern Ireland, cannot simply be dismissed.

A central issue is the extent to which clause 27A could alter the existing balance between independent assessment and departmental control. The new provision would allow remuneration orders to prescribe how costs are to be calculated and determined.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mrs Long: Again, the remuneration orders can already do that. The power already exists, and I referred to it in my opening remarks. What we are doing is putting it into primary legislation to make sure that there is no risk of misinterpretation and no lack of clarity. With respect to the criticism of the Department for bringing these things in by way of amendment, I would have thought that the Member and the Committee Chair, who themselves tabled significant amendments to the Bill after the Committee Stage, and who have had three months to wrestle with this and could have come to us for further information at any time, are on pretty thin ice. We have been willing to engage with you on your amendments to move things forward constructively. I would have thought that, over the course of three months, this could have been done in the same manner with the Committee.

Mr McGlone: Yes, and you will appreciate that there have been many other issues for the Committee to deal with. I thank you for your engagement with the amendments that I have had the opportunity to bring before the House. We will see how they work out. However, you will accept that it is important. I have been there and worn that T-shirt on many occasions when we have wanted to make sure that things are done properly, with the proper consultation and collaboration that needs to be done. I say that genuinely, because I have sat on the other side of the Chamber, and it is not a good place to be when things have not been done properly by the Department or by officials.

You mentioned the new provision for remuneration orders, Minister. While the Department argues that it provides flexibility, legitimate questions remain about whether it also reduces the degree of independent assessment currently provided by the taxation process and places greater control in the hands of the Department. Stakeholders have warned that the Assembly has been asked to approve a framework before any clear alternative system has been developed or consulted on. That is a wider lesson that we should be mindful of. The Bar has also drawn attention to the experience in England and Wales following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, commonly known as LASPO. The evidence from that period shows what can happen when access to justice is weakened through structural reform. Large numbers of legal aid providers disappeared, unmet legal need increased and increasing numbers of people were left unable to access legal support when they needed it most. The consequences did not simply disappear; they were displaced into public services, the offices of elected representatives, believe it or not, and other parts of the system. None of us should want to repeat any of those mistakes if they did materialise.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mrs Long: I will draw two things to the Member's attention. First, this does not change the remuneration; it is not about that. It is about making the structure more transparent and accountable, and that is good when we are talking about public money. Secondly, will the Member accept that, yes, the Bar is a professional organisation and has experience in these matters, but it also has a vested interest?

Mr McGlone: I get that, Minister. The point that I am making, whenever I get to it, is that we want to arrive at a situation that was eventually arrived at last week around the pay, and that is by the involvement of professionals. I am sure that you will be the first to accept that many of those people are professionals. Indeed, the Department, and other Departments, engage them periodically to fight their cases. These are professional people who might even bring some very good ideas and thoughts to the table as to how the matter can be addressed. None of us wants to be in a situation where people are screwing the system, or even where there is fraud, which you raised earlier. We do not want to be in that type of situation. We want people to have access to justice. We want people to get a good rate of pay for what they do, and we want those who need access to justice to get it.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way again. On what basis would he say that we are in some way trying to ignore the experience and expertise of the Bar? Solicitors are already paid in this way. Are they less important? Do they matter less? Their clients would probably argue that they spend more time with their solicitor than with their barrister during a case. It is not unreasonable to ask barristers to simply quantify their work to allow the public and the legal aid recipient to see what they are getting. Remember, we do not pay the barristers; we pay the client.

It is the client who pays the barrister, and the client should have as much control as possible, because I am telling you this: if a barrister was acting on my behalf, I would want to know how many hours they had spent on my case; how much work they had been doing and how complicated it was; and whether I was getting good value for money. If I want that for me on a personal level, I absolutely expect it when it comes to public money being expended more widely.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much for that, Minister. I am not here this evening to arrange a fight with barristers or to be referee in a fight with barristers. Well, maybe I could do that, but, at the end of the day, I want to make sure that, whatever the outcome, there is a fair, reasoned and transparent system. I am sure that not every barrister out there is just out to screw the system and get the maximum amount of money out of it. There are those who want a fair, transparent and equal system that is accessible to many people who do not otherwise have access to the legal system. That is my point, Minister.

Legal aid is not merely another item of public expenditure; it is a mechanism by which people are able to access the courts, defend their rights and secure representation. Any reform that has the potential to impact on the sustainability of legal aid provision should therefore be approached carefully, in a reasoned way, thoughtfully and by people who have experience and expertise on, dare I say, both sides of the argument and the equation. They may take different pathways to come to the one destination, but I am sure that there are many people who want to arrive at a fair, equitable and transparent outcome.

The difficulty is that the evidence base and, indeed, many of the practical implications of the proposed new clause 27A remain, at this point anyway, unclear. The SDLP accepts that reform may be necessary; there is no doubt about that. We accept that the original clause 28 raised legitimate concerns and should not remain part of the Bill. However, at this stage, we are not persuaded that the replacement proposal has been subject to sufficient scrutiny, consultation, examination or engagement to justify its inclusion. Questions remain about judicial independence, the future role of independent assessment, the impact on access to justice and the extent of the powers being conferred on the Department. For those reasons, while we support the Minister in opposing clause 28 standing part of the Bill, we are unable to support amendment No 91 and the proposed new clause 27A.

Ms Sheerin: I want to outline Sinn Féin's position on these amendments. Like the Member who spoke previously, we are in agreement with the Minister on opposing the inclusion of clause 28, but we have similar concerns as my constituency colleague about the proposed new clause 27A. It goes back to a lot of the rationale that has already been presented, such as the lack of an opportunity to scrutinise and the lack of detail on how exactly it would work.

A lot of the clarification that the Minister has provided about having a process or a system that is consistent across the board and consistent with how others are paid makes sense. During engagement with the Bar Council, we heard very clearly that it is open to reform and wants to work with the Department and the Minister to reform. We support that. Obviously, we all want to see a system that everyone can buy into and support and one that works for victims of crime and those who require support in the courts. We have particular concerns about how legal aid is accessible and how, when it comes to barristers who operate in the field of legal aid, it is not accessible for ethnic minorities or those from working-class backgrounds.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. It is not about accessibility. The wider enabling access to justice programme that was laid with the Committee a number of months ago deals with wider issues around accessibility. For example, I talked about changing the financial threshold, because, as you know, there is an upper limit. I believe that that upper limit is now too low and excludes a lot of people who could not afford to take legal action themselves. We talked about that being the wide end of the funnel and then looking, at the other end, at what the public benefit and public good is from serving. That is because cases are also taken under legal aid that serve no particular public good, and we need to look at how we prevent that from happening.

It is not, therefore, about access but about ensuring that the money that we have — we are spending more money on legal aid this year than we ever have before, so it is not about cuts to legal aid — is transparent and fully accounted for, and that we can have confidence that people are being paid for a job well done and that the work that they put in and the remuneration that they get match. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I think that most people, in any line of employment, would expect as much. Certainly, when I was working in my professional capacity as an engineer, I was expected to keep time sheets. It is not unusual for people to have to record the work that they do and to be rewarded for its complexity as well as the time that is spent. All of that is in there. By agreeing to the new clause, the Committee would be given the opportunity to scrutinise all of that. At the minute, you cannot, because that decision is taken elsewhere and is beyond our control.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for her intervention. I do not think that there is any disagreement in the Committee on the objective and what you have set out there. I do not think that we have heard disagreement from any Member who has spoken thus far. I take your point that it is not explicitly about accessing the service, accessing justice or accessibility for barristers. However, any improvement to the service inherently improves accessibility. We have heard about issues with the family courts and the fact that people are not aware of the system or do not understand it: anything that you do to broaden or increase that understanding will inevitably lead to greater access, which is what we all want.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes.

Mrs Long: I reassure the Member — if it reassures her at all — that I would like to see people's ability to access legal aid improved significantly. In fact, we will bring proposals to the Committee shortly that will set out that wider scope of legal aid to ensure that more people are captured within it. We are also looking at things such as simplifying the domestic abuse waiver system, because we know from feedback from the professions that it has not been working well. However, this is not about that. This is about how people are paid for the work that they do. I simply think that it is reasonable and rational to ask people to account for the work that they do and to pay them accordingly. When you have people working on the same case who have the same qualifications and the same overheads, and those who are paid through legal aid get paid multiples of what those who are paid, for example, by the PPS get paid, that cannot be justified. By doing things in this way, we would have control over the accountability and transparency. For me, that is really important.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister. Again, we are hearing from across the Committee that the need for increased clarity is the barrier to people's supporting the clause. There is lots in what you have said that provides food for thought and something for us to consider, because we feel that ensuring that people have access to legal aid, and that the best in the business are incentivised to remain within that system, is definitely a priority for us.

Ms Egan: Respect for the rule of law and efficient, competent justice systems are critical for a healthy and shared society. Legal aid plays a fundamental role in ensuring that victims, witnesses and defendants enter into a justice system that delivers both fairly and effectively. We need a justice system where public money is used responsibly, with clear markers that show proportionate value to spend. That is why it gives me deep concern that, as Minister Long set out in her opening remarks, the Assembly has very little oversight of around 25% of legal aid expenditure — approximately £30 million per annum — whereas the other 75% is subject to arrangements that are set out in secondary legislation.

On that, Alliance welcomes Naomi Long's amendments to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 that clarify that the provisions on remuneration to providers of services under legal aid can apply to anyone. As Minister Long stated, that does not change the current legal position but instead makes the current provisions explicit in their meaning. The current arrangements have also been noted with concern by the Public Accounts Committee, highlighting the lack of Assembly scrutiny over that area of public spend. During Committee Stage, there was much engagement on that issue with interested stakeholders, including those from across the legal profession, and I thank them for their time and feedback, which was noted. I support Minister Long's withdrawal of clause 28, which will enable the retention of a role for the taxing master.

Accountability and transparency when it comes to public money and access to justice are vital. The amendments in the group support both objectives, as well as the ambition that I am sure that all of us around the Chamber share, which is to build a justice system that is sustainable in the long term.

Mr Burrows: The legal aid system should, of course, be fair to claimants and to practitioners, but most crucially, it should be fair to taxpayers, who pay for legal aid. They work day and night, often in less attractive jobs, to put their pound into the taxation that pays for legal aid. There is a feeling, as well as facts, that the current system is not fair, procedurally and substantively. To my mind, it is only fair that solicitors and barristers be treated the same in the approach to the legal aid system and that there be a clear framework by which legal aid costs can be determined. That does not compromise the independence of the taxing master. Rather, it reinforces it by having a clear, objective framework on which decisions can be made. It is only right that, when the public are funding something, there be maximum transparency and clarity in frameworks for how billing decisions are made. It is a well-established fact that the defence will charge more than the prosecution, even though, as the Minister said, they have equal qualifications and are putting in the same number of hours. It is therefore only fair that they charge the same.

In principle, I support the Minister, but I want to hear all the arguments. The regulations will be key, as the devil will be in the detail. In short — I do like to be brief — it is important that there be fairness. The amendment helps recalibrate that fairness back towards the taxpayer, in that it will bring in consistency, transparency and a clear framework under which to make billing decisions. That is a positive move.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Aoife Finnegan.

Ms Finnegan: Sorry, I was not ready, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Sinn Féin recognises that access to justice is one of the fundamental principles in any fair and democratic society. Legal rights have little practical meaning if individuals cannot effectively exercise them because they lack the financial means to obtain legal representation. The principle of equality before the law demands that justice should be available to everyone, regardless of their income and personal circumstances.

Legal aid plays a vital role in supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including children, victims of domestic abuse, individuals who are experiencing poverty, people with disabilities and people who are facing complex legal proceedings. The issue also links directly to the concerns that Sinn Féin has consistently raised about access to justice in the family court system.

The Assembly last month debated Sinn Féin's motion on protections against coercive control and abuse through the courts, in which we highlighted the experiences of victims who are subjected to repeated and often unnecessary court proceedings as a continuation of abusive behaviour. During that debate, the Minister acknowledged that changes were required in order to better support victims navigating the justice system. Although legal aid is available in certain domestic abuse cases, we have heard significant concerns that many victims either are unaware of their entitlements or face processes that are lengthy, complex and difficult to navigate. The result is that some of the most vulnerable people in our society face additional barriers while attempting to access justice and secure legal representation.

We also heard evidence during the Committee's scrutiny from members of the legal profession, who indicated that, in some cases, the only reason that they can continue to take on legal aid clients is because private clients effectively subsidise that work through substantially higher fees. Not every practice is in a position to do that, and that raises wider concerns about the sustainability of legal aid provision and the availability of representation for those who rely on it.

Those examples demonstrate the importance of approaching any changes to legal aid with caution. If reforms further restrict access or reduce the availability of legal representation, it is often vulnerable victims and those with the least means who suffer the consequences. Access to justice must remain a practical reality, not merely a principle.

We recognise that public money must always be spent responsibly and that legal aid systems should operate effectively. However, any reform must be carefully considered to ensure that it does not create additional barriers for those who rely on those services. Sinn Féin believes that any change to legal aid arrangements must protect fairness, maintain access to justice and ensure that the most vulnerable are not disadvantaged. For those reasons, we oppose new clause 27A as drafted.

Apologies that I was not ready for you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No problem. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: As a DUP member of the Committee for Justice, I will comment in particular on amendment No 91 on legal aid and the role of the taxing master. As my colleague Paul Frew MLA said, we had considerable engagement in Committee on that amendment, which proposes new clause 27A as an amendment to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. That would enable the Department of Justice to include provision about how the taxing master should determine the amount of legal aid that is to be awarded to solicitors and barristers who are working on eligible cases.

In particular, we received representations from the Bar of Northern Ireland, which represents barristers here, and the Law Society of Northern Ireland, which represents and regulates solicitors. They welcomed the fact that the Minister had indicated that she will not proceed with clause 28 on taxation, meaning payment, of legal aid costs. Indeed, I confess that I found it difficult to understand clause 28. However, it is now proposed that we replace clause 28, which took up a page and a half in the Bill, with the much shorter new clause 27A. Whilst that new clause is just 10 lines, the representatives of the legal profession were concerned that clause 27A would have huge significance.

Clause 27A would bring in an enabling power for the Department to make unspecified provisions for the setting of legal aid payments. The legal representatives' greatest concerns were that there was uncertainty about the consequences and that the overall purpose of clause 27A was to reduce legal aid payments, though they accepted that the legal aid budget was under huge pressure. Their concerns were that the discretion and insight of the taxing master, who receives those legal aid claims and decides what amount should be paid in each case, would be significantly diminished; the taxing master would have to determine payments strictly in line with relevant fees, hourly rates and arrangements —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: — let me finish this section — that would be set out in a remuneration order dictated by the Department; and that the role of the taxing master would be reduced to just counting the number of hours that were spent working on a case, with payment based on a fixed hourly rate without due regard to the complexity of the case — I am presenting what was presented to us — and they feared that brief fees would no longer be recognised, which, I understand, is a fixed amount that applies to every case for producing the report that is sent to the taxing master. They said that that was a clear encroachment on the independence of the taxing master as a legal officer.

I will carry on for another wee bit.

The Bar and the Law Society said that they were not opposed to a wider package of reform. They were, however, deeply concerned by the uncertainty over how that change could end up and the unintended consequences that it could have.

The Bar and the Law Society asked that the Department carry out a review with them as active participants. They claimed that the Department had already indicated its intention to move to an hourly rate, which, they said, would be a huge shift. Nevertheless, I was left with the impression that solicitors are more used to detailing their claims by way of time spent and hourly rates, whereas barristers, it seemed to me, tend to use the Comerton scale, if I understand it correctly, with less detail provided.

The Bar and the Law Society said that the taxing master, as the protector of the legal aid fund, was not previously accountable to the departmental accounting officer. Indeed, the proposed new clause 27A was described as a power grab by the Department. In reply, I pointed out that, as elected representatives, having responsibility for public expenditure and taxpayers' money, we believe in accountability for public funds and that, in general, good value for money for the public purse is a positive. Our primary purpose is to represent the public interest, to represent the taxpayer and to uphold fairness.

Equally, those who provide a publicly funded service should be paid fairly for their service. We must avoid a situation where there is a shortage of solicitors and barristers who are willing to take on legal aid cases because of the poor rate of return, similar to what has happened with NHS dentistry. The Law Society said that solicitors who take on private cases typically charge at two or three times the rate paid for legal aid work, and that a higher rate is charged for private work that is more complex. The Law Society said that solicitors had already withdrawn from legal aid work in some rural areas, which they described as becoming like "legal aid deserts".

I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: The Member has talked about a couple of things since I first indicated that I wanted him to give way. The first thing to say is that there is no evidence of legal aid deserts in Northern Ireland. We heard that from the Law Society previously, but when I went out to the west to meet practitioners, they raised some issues with me that were causing them problems but have now been resolved, including remuneration for travel when courthouses were operating only as temporary hearing centres and so on. They raised issues that were causing them concern and which I did not feel were fair.

The Member hit on the point that solicitors submit the amount of time that they spend on a case and they detail the complexity of the case. They rely on the taxing master to look at that and say, "Yes, that seems like a reasonable amount of time and a reasonable allowance for the complexity of the case". The taxing master has discretion, if they feel that solicitors have not properly accounted for their time, to be able to increase or reduce the amount paid.

The problem with the brief fee is that it is a number. It is a figure that the barrister puts on their value in a case. It is not broken down by hours or by the complexity of the case; all of that rests with the taxing master to make the decision. It is completely opaque. I do not know another line of work where that would happen. Let us be honest; even in this place, you used to be able to come here or not come here and still draw your salary, and there was no accountability over that. Part of the reforms that were made in light of the public demand for change included that people had to swipe in and out and give an account of their time. There is an expectation, when you are earning significant amounts of money in a privileged position, and particularly when that money comes from the public purse, that you can account for the time that you spent. As things stand, however, that does not happen.

I am not trying to restrict access to legal aid, nor am I trying to underpay those who are doing the work. However, I want to know exactly what we are paying for and how it is calculated, and to have the transparency to know whether people are being properly remunerated. When we tried to sort out the recent dispute, which has now been resolved, part of the challenge was that the Bar could not give us the data that we needed. We were reliant on economists and others to provide that data for us. There is a fundamental issue here, which is that with time and line billing, we will at least have the data through which we will then be able to assess other things.

When it comes to blank cheques, just to be absolutely clear, all of this will come back to the Committee for scrutiny. That is something that does not happen with the taxing master. With respect, I respect judicial independence, and when it comes to making decisions about individual cases and sentencing, I do not cross-examine, cross-question or challenge. However, this is public money from my Department, from the same budget that has to fund policing, prisons and everything else that goes with Justice. I have to account for that, and I believe that I have a responsibility to do that. It is not a power grab; it is a reassertion of powers that we already have, and which we are putting in primary legislation in order to have clarity.

Mr Kingston: I was happy to take that long intervention from the Minister, because I had put a lot of concerns on the record that had been expressed to us. As I have said, we believe in accountability for public funds and good value for money, but we also believe in access to justice and ensuring that people do not find — as has happened with NHS dentistry, by way of comparison — that they struggle to find a professional who will undertake the work for them. People are entitled to fair pay for their work, but the public want to know that it is fair and not exaggerated.

Another comment that was made to us was that there should be an incentive to shorten court cases where possible rather than dragging them out. There may have been an element of admission in that, but perhaps something in the system could encourage there to be no disincentive to shortening a case if there is an opportunity to do so.

The overall opinion from the Law Society and the Bar of Northern Ireland was, "Why fix what is not broken?" Along with my colleague Paul Frew, I have presented some of the concerns that were expressed to us. We will continue to scrutinise the matter in the interest of public accounts, fairness to the professionals concerned and access to justice.

Ms Ferguson: Access to justice is a cornerstone of our legal and political system. It is not a buzzword or a phrase; it is the very foundation of a fair and accessible justice system that works for everyone in society, regardless of income, identity and background. Upholding the rule of law requires a legal system that has the capacity to provide equitable, impartial and accessible justice. Legal aid and local access to legal firms, professionals and pro bono advice services are some of the core pillars of delivering justice in practice. Everyone has the right to a fair hearing. Everyone has the right not to be treated unfairly or be denied rights on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or disability. Everyone has the right to effective legal remedy when their fundamental rights are violated. Those rights are recognised in several international and domestic frameworks, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Effective legal remedies were further developed in the case of Kreutz v Poland, in which the court held that the requirement to pay substantial fees to the court was a restriction on the individual's right of access to a court. The court stated:

was a key factor

The debate on amendment No 91 must be considered in the broader context of protecting individuals and safeguarding their right of legal access. It is therefore fundamental that discussions around legal aid are set in the context of the social security and welfare system being resourced and capable of protecting vulnerable individuals in society. Without meaningful access to legal representation, the protections guaranteed under our human rights instruments and obligations risk becoming irrelevant, particularly for those facing financial hardship or social disadvantage.

It is important to pause at this point and recognise that legal aid should not be viewed solely as a cost. That completely misses the point of the significant return on investment that it delivers.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mrs Long: I have never considered legal aid solely as a cost. In fact, on my watch, legal aid expenditure has increased from, I think, £76·9 million in 2020 to approximately £120 million last year. Anyone suggesting that I am not committed to legal aid or that I do not recognise its value needs to provide substantial evidence to counter what I have just said. This is about ensuring that the legal aid money is properly spent and transparently accounted for.

Although the police, prisons, probation and, when it comes to legal aid, the LSA, all have to do accounts, we are in a situation in which the taxed element of legal aid is not subject to any scrutiny or transparency. It is not about making cuts or taking money away from anybody; it is about ensuring that the recipients of legal aid receive the service that they are paying for with public money.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her intervention. I was not suggesting that you were considering legal aid solely on cost; I was trying to set out the context of how critical legal aid is. Similar to security and welfare benefits, it is about supporting our most vulnerable. I am setting it in the context of the debate.

We need to be aware that, not so long ago, our legal companies were waiting for six months before they were paid their fees. They were working in kind while they awaited their fees. If it were not for them, many would not have been able to access legal justice.

I thank the Law Society for the research that it did in January 2025. It found that, for every pound invested in legal aid, approximately £8·32 is returned in social value. Measurable outcomes include enhanced quality of life, reduced family conflicts, fewer criminal convictions and savings across our public services, including in social work and policing. Legal aid should therefore be upheld and protected as an essential component of a fair and functioning justice system. Concerningly, however, significant challenges exist regarding the timely provision of legal aid funding, low fees and high operational costs, with associated risks to the sustainability of smaller firms and available legal professionals, particularly in rural areas. The Minister said that she felt that that was not the case, but, going by conversations that I have had with many practices in the north-west in particular, my visit to the courthouse and the conversations that I have had at the all-party group, it is the case.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mrs Long: Although this is not about legal aid payments, I do not know how anybody could say that people are not being remunerated properly, given that there has been an uplift of over 16% in the past year, with a further uplift of over 8% that I announced about a week and a half ago. Many in the public sector would look at that quite jealously.

It is not just my opinion. We looked at the distribution of practices across Northern Ireland and at what they do when it comes to providing legal aid. It is not about feels; it is about facts. From our perspective, if there were issues around people not being willing or able to practise in certain localities, we would look at that, because I agree with the Member 100%: people must have access to justice. However, if we do not control properly the expenditure on the taxation element, that is money that is coming out of the budget that other legal aid recipients rely on.

I correct what the Member said about delayed payments. Payments are now made much more swiftly than they have been for a long time.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister. It is great to hear that payments are now being made more swiftly. A few years ago, they were not being made swiftly, and we were heavily dependent on legal professionals waiting for six months before they were paid.

On the timely provision of legal aid funding, I once again mention the low fees and high operational costs that come with associated risks to the sustainability of our small companies and legal professionals, particularly those in rural areas. Those run in tandem with the ongoing closure of Magistrates' Courts in certain localities, which creates additional risk for economically disadvantaged and rural areas. We do not want an exodus of legal talent and local services in specific areas of law, such as child custody, care, immigration, housing and social welfare.

Clause 27A in amendment No 91 was drafted to replace clause 28, which was debated at First Stage and Second Stage. Clause 28 would have removed the role of the taxing master from the assessment of certain legally aided fees. Clause 27A was received during the latter part of the Committee's scrutiny. Its practical effect would be that the taxing master, when determining costs, must do so in line with the relevant fees, rates and arrangements set out in an unknown remuneration order to be set by the Department at a later stage.

The Bar raised concerns about clause 27A with the Justice Committee. The current taxing master is an independent, evidence-based judicial office holder.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mrs Long: In the discussions with the Bar, you asked for evidence about how brief fees were constructed and how they were calculated by the Bar. Would you like to set out for us the answer that it gave you on the evidence base that it uses to produce a brief fee?

Ms Ferguson: Minister, if you can recall, you will know that, for over two years, I have been asking departmental officials what the remuneration orders are and how they will be set. They were to liaise with the solicitors and the barristers. I still have not received that information, and I still am not aware of what those will look like. It is not that we oppose an open, fair and transparent process, but it is hard when you do not have the evidence base for why it is being done, plus the fact that we do not have in front of us what this will look like and what impact it will have on the current legal aid system and on local people.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mrs Long: I think that the Member is in danger of putting the cart before the horse. The first thing that we want to do is to clarify in primary legislation the power that we already have to create remuneration orders. If the Member wants examples, there are examples already that apply to solicitors. That is how the taxing master works when they are doing taxed work with solicitors' involvement. They have a remuneration order that gives them the direction, and they seem to be able to manage that fine, and it is no encroachment on their independence. Therefore, I do not see why this would be different.

Why would we go to the trouble of producing the regulations? That is secondary legislation. You do primary legislation first, and then you do secondary legislation afterwards. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to put this into primary legislation, and then we will produce the remuneration order. That remuneration order, as with every other piece of secondary legislation, will go to the Committee for scrutiny; scrutiny that you were not allowed to have when the taxing master made a decision to raise fees.

That was not the question that I asked the Member. I asked the Member whether, if she agrees that there is a need for evidence to substantiate the claims and what the Department is doing, she can set out for me the evidence provided to her by the Bar on how a barrister calculates a brief fee. I know that the Committee wrote and asked. I have seen the response, and it certainly was not evidence-based. I ask the Member, if she is confident that it is an evidence-based process at the moment and she is standing in the way of us trying to introduce an evidence-based process, to explain to me how they do it.

Ms Ferguson: To be honest, Minister, you are basically asking us to approve a broad power without us having the detail of how it will operate. That is what I would like to see. Likewise, you mentioned the taxing master changing: there was no increase in 10 years, and you are highlighting that as an issue.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: I am going to proceed, and I will maybe let you come in then.

The taxing master operates with oversight and safeguards that are attached to their legal obligation. They have a legal obligation to protect the legal aid fund. Indeed, the taxing master and the Lady Chief Justice confirmed to the Committee in January that the taxing master has a duty to the legal aid fund when determining the hourly rate for solicitors and interlocutory fees for barristers. In taxing a bill of costs, the taxing master is, essentially, independently reviewing and settling the amount to be paid for legal work. The Bar could not say that it was satisfied yet with how the proposed reforms in clause 27A and any rigid fee structures or restricted uplifts in complex, sensitive and vulnerable cases would work in practice. The clause, at this stage, feels to the Bar like, as others have said, a legislative blank cheque for the Department. Thus far — it is important to say "thus far" — it did not feel that it had received any understandable rationale, indication or clarification of what the proposed alternative configuration would look like or what benefits it would derive in comparison with the current role of the taxing master.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: I will, but I will get through more of my speech first.

It is not that anyone is opposed to future reform — that is clear, and the Bar noted that — but it must be done in a way that produces a sustainable and effective justice system. It is important that any proposals that could radically change the existing system be evidence-based, warranted and accompanied by a clear evaluation of the benefits, the costs and the reasoning for change.

There is also the issue of scrutiny and accountability. The proposals to give the Department unilateral power to set remuneration fees internally came late in the day, as the Minister knows, and the Committee had no opportunity to scrutinise them. Such a radical departure from existing practice on legal aid deserves proper consideration and full scrutiny. It would also be beneficial if reforms could evidence some degree of support among those who represent the legal advice and services sector and work in it daily. That would give a bit more confidence.

I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: The two things that we will get from what I have proposed are transparency and accountability, neither of which we have under the current system. Within the legal system, solicitors are content with the proposal. The reason that barristers are not content is that it is they who have a blank cheque. They can write their brief fee and submit it to the taxing master; and the taxing master can move it up or down by as big or small a percentage as he wishes, depending on his view of the case. It is not a blank cheque for the Department. The Department would bring the remuneration orders to the Committee for scrutiny and consult the Bar, the Lady Chief Justice, the taxing master and everyone else as part of that process.

We already have the power, so that is the bit that is confusing me slightly. That power exists in secondary legislation, but we would prefer to put it in primary legislation for clarity, because we feel that it would be good practice to do so and then have the remuneration orders in secondary legislation. The amendment is not a major departure from what is already in legislation. It will simply place the power in primary legislation to ensure that we have transparency and accountability.

The taxing master may well have a duty to the legal aid fund, but he does not have a duty to assess value for money or affordability, and he has no duty whatever to report on the rationale for his decision-making. That is contrary to what applies to me, because I have to give reasons for why I want to do something. If I want to uplift legal aid fees, I have to provide the Member's colleague in the Department of Finance with a business case that will justify that uplift. None of that is true under the current system. I do not see why those who are not accountable financially on the issue should be able to spend that element of the Department's budget. Judicial independence matters. This is about financial accountability.

Ms Ferguson: Minister, while we can sympathise with the need to ground legal aid in a broader framework that recognises it as a fundamental public responsibility, we are somewhat concerned that the Department has been unable to provide sufficient detail on how future remuneration rates will be determined. Legal aid is not merely a publicly funded service but a lifeline for many. It supports vulnerable individuals through some of the most challenging moments of their lives, from custody battles to navigating sensitive cases. Access to legal aid, where needed, helps people to understand and assert their rights and entitlements, to be empowered to use the law and to be represented in courts and tribunals, where needed. Access to legal aid buys a critical role in enhancing citizenship, upholding rights and reducing social exclusion.

We argue, however, that sufficient detail has not yet been provided on how the proposed changes in new clause 27A will not inadvertently undermine the financial viability of legal aid work, particularly amidst the ongoing pressures that have been outlined.

In addition, further pressure was applied in tandem with the proposed reforms through the recent strike action by the Criminal Bar Association. However, we very much welcome the fact that the Justice Minister accepted all the recommendations of the recent review, which resulted in the conclusion of the strike.

The Department will implement the increase to all criminal, civil and family legal aid fees, with estimated additional payments being received by solicitors in early 2027. Nonetheless, the Crown Court criminal caseload at 31 May 2026, based on Courts and Tribunals Service data, had increased by over 50% since 1 January 2026, including over 1,800 cases awaiting arraignment, a trial date or sentencing. Whilst fees must keep pace with the cost of business, we must ensure that legal aid work is sustainable, that any reviews are done in a regular and consistent manner and that legal aid solicitors remain readily available to protect access to justice.

Whilst we sympathise with the wider conversation on reform of legal aid, to protect and enhance its availability and accessibility further work is needed at this stage by the Minister and her Department, in collaboration with the Law Society, the Bar, the Criminal Bar Association and others, to engage on any reforms, and for there to be timely presentation of the assessment that they are suitable and practical to meet that core objective. For all those reasons, we cannot support amendment No 91.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Members. That concludes the list of Members who wish to speak. I call the Minister of Justice to make a winding-up speech.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Before I speak about what we are debating, it is important that I set out what we are not debating. We are not debating the value of legal aid. We are not debating access to legal aid being essential. We are not debating that we need a sustainable system. None of that is up for debate. We all agree that those are essential. People should have access to justice and it should not be fettered by a lack of finance. The legal aid system provides people in need with proper legal representation, and so it should — and so it will, and has, on my watch.

We are not talking about cutting legal aid. As I pointed out, the legal aid fund has grown, some would argue exponentially and unsustainably, over recent years, so there is no comparison with what happened in England and Wales where the legal aid budget was slashed in 2014-15 because that is not what we have done. We are also not discussing how frequently we will review fees because we have already had a discussion with the Law Society and the Bar Council to do that every three years, and that is already in train.

Those are all things that have nothing to do with the amendment, which is about bringing a significant portion of expenditure — £30 million — back within the purview and scrutiny of the Assembly and my Department. It is not necessarily the case that it will be less. The point was made, "Well, what would you have done with the uplift from the taxing master?". I do not know because I was not party to all the data, and that is the point. However, we should be party to all the data. We should know how figures are arrived at. We should be able to scrutinise, challenge and question them because that is our job. We are here to represent the public, the people who pay their taxes and expect us to ensure that when money is spent, it is spent on the right thing, that it is fully accountable and transparent and that it provides value for money.

I did not think that the amendment would create such concern. It would place on a primary legislation footing powers that we already have in the Department, so it is not a major departure or a complex piece of work that is being rushed through. We have those powers. We are putting them in primary legislation to provide clarity on the role that would be taken by the Department, so I am surprised that it has received such a lukewarm reception.

To be clear, the taxing master is currently responsible for assessing the costs claimed by legal representatives in respect of civil proceedings in the High Court and civil and criminal proceedings in the Court of Appeal. I will come back to appeal courts, because it is important that people understand what we are talking about when it comes to brief fees. At the conclusion of an assessment, a certificate of taxation, which details costs payable by the paying party, is used and issued to the solicitor. Where the costs are to be met by legal aid, the certificate goes to the Legal Services Agency, and payments are made.

Back in December 2024, I announced the enabling access to justice reform programme, which included an upfront commitment to reform the taxation process to ensure greater accountability, transparency and budgetary control. My Department does not have endless financial resource, so I have to be able to control the money that is within my purview and ensure that it is properly used. Initially, we intended to deliver that reform in a phased manner by proceeding type, with High Court bail applications, judicial review, and criminal Court of Appeal proceedings to be reformed by the end of the current mandate, and to move forward on reforming other proceedings in future mandates.

New frameworks will have to be developed, with legal aid fees and rates being set alongside the administrative processes that would allow the LSA to assess and process claims for payment. It is not unusual for Departments to set out their powers in primary legislation and then to make regulations; in fact, that is the only way in which it can be done. We cannot make the regulations without the regulation-making power. However, it is really important that people understand that we have the power; what we are trying to do is put it on a clearer footing.

In April 2025, a decision of the taxing master was taken to increase the solicitor hourly rate and counsel interlocutory fees by over 50% — not 15% but 50% — concerns were raised by the Bar and the Law Society about the removal of the taxing master from legal aid assessments, and there were calls from the Law Society to expedite taxation reform in relation to family and children order proceedings. We therefore decided to change our approach.

The Department then sought to expedite reform by seeking to change the system as follows: the Department will set by legislation the fees and rates and the arrangements that the taxing master will apply when assessing costs to be paid out of the legal aid fund. That will ensure that fees and rates are subject to legislative scrutiny by the Assembly — the Justice Committee — as well as proportionate economic appraisal through value-for-money and affordability measures as is required for the expenditure of public money. That is not challenging. We have to provide a business case for police pay, prison officer pay and any other expenditure in the Department that changes, so that does not seem unreasonable, unusual or novel.

Hourly rates will be introduced for barristers in line with article 47 criteria, and counsel will be required to document the time spent on and the nature of the work carried out. Again, for professional people, that is not a big deal. If I were to pay someone to do work for me, I would want to know how many hours they spent on it and the nature of the work that they sent out. I would certainly want to know that before parting with my cash. Equally, on behalf of the public purse, I want to know what that looks like. An hourly rate will be set for solicitors that, in line with the statutory criteria that have been set out, will cover the cost of providing the service and include a fixed, reasonable profit margin.

This is not about trying to put solicitors out of business. We recognise that there are overhead costs to be factored in. The Member for North Belfast talked about dentistry. I will declare an interest before I speak further, because, as he knows, my husband is a dentist. There is an issue with NHS fees, for example, not allowing practices a profit margin. They do not even allow the overheads to be factored in. Things such as staffing costs are not remunerated as they ought to be, which is why so many people have departed the NHS system.

Billing information will be captured on the legal aid management system. That means that the LSA will be able to build a comprehensive dataset on the time spent on and the nature of the work. That will be accessible for internal and external audit and for accountability mechanisms, so we will be able to manage our budget better, and it will inform future policy development such as the development of standard fees and rates, which we have talked about. Part of the challenge that we have had in resolving the dispute with the criminal Bar is lack of evidence because of the departure from "time and line" billing in previous reform.

The amendment clarifies that any fees and rates and associated administrative arrangements set by the Department in secondary legislation can be applied by the taxing master when assessing costs to be paid out of the legal aid fund.

That neutralises the risk of the scheme being undermined by the taxing master exercising a discretion outside the regulations. It also reduces the risk of legal challenge if the Department makes a remuneration order to set legal aid fees and rates for proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal to be applied by the taxing master. It enables the Department to increase transparency, accountability and budgetary control, all in relation to legal aid expenditure subject to taxation, and it expedites reform, as the taxing master is retained in an assessment role, negating the need, at this stage, to establish any assessment function in the LSA. It brings a uniform approach to the composition of bills submitted by barristers and solicitors and so removes the lack of transparency around uplifts and brief fees as well as the risks of escalating and unpredictable costs. The amendment simply clarifies the wide powers conferred by articles 12(3) and 24(3) of the 2003 Order to make provision about remuneration to providers of services under legal aid that can apply to anyone, including the taxing master, who is assessing the remuneration to be paid.

Currently, hourly rates for solicitors include significant percentage profit uplifts for all bills. We have been able to prove through data that, on average, that rate is around 64%. That is a significant profit account. We are not here to make life difficult for people who are working hard and providing a vital service, but we want to have transparency. The new system will have an hourly rate set for solicitors that covers the cost of production and allows for reasonable profit. Currently, barristers submit a brief fee with no breakdown. I asked the Member for Foyle how a brief fee is composed, and the Member did not answer the question, because, despite the Committee asking the Bar for details of how brief fees are made up, nothing that was sent to the Committee provided any clarity on that. It is a completely opaque process, and, from my perspective —.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will, yes.

Ms Ferguson: Minister, that is not my role as a Committee Member. I have asked the Department on numerous occasions — you will be well aware; it is on the record — for the same information on who the departmental officials were working with. For a year at the time, I perceived that they were working with and speaking to the taxing master. Unfortunately, when we met the taxing master, they had not even had a meeting with your departmental officials on this.

Mrs Long: Again, that is not the same point. What the Member was just talking about and what she said earlier is that she had tried to get clarity from the Department on what the regulations would look like. We have not engaged the taxing master on the regulations. Why would we? We are not doing the regulations. That will come later.

We engaged with the taxing master, but remember that the taxing master has changed. I suggest, therefore, that, before the Member gets too indignant, it may simply be that they met one taxing master rather than the other. The taxing master changed midway through the process, and I assure the Member that my officials have met the taxing master.

My question was about whether the Bar Council was able to explain to Members in a way that was open, transparent and accountable how it calculates a brief fee. The answer to that is clearly "No", because it was not able to provide that to the Department either. That is not acceptable. It is really important that we are able to understand how brief fees are calculated and that the process is transparent and accountable to the public, because it has a significant impact on the expenditure on legal aid. It also ensures that the data that we have will be more helpful in the future, which is important, because I agree with the Member for Foyle that we need more regular reviews. I have to say that it is difficult to do reviews every three years when the Assembly is suspended every three years for some reason or other. All Members have to take some responsibility for the fact that that has not perhaps proceeded in the way that I and others would have wished.

It is not just the Department that has concerns about the current situation. Those challenges were reflected in the Public Accounts Committee's report in 2019, in which concern was expressed that a large proportion of legal aid expenditure did not come under the purview of the Department and lacked any scrutiny by the Assembly. The Northern Ireland Audit Office has also raised concerns about how the process was not open to proper scrutiny. We have provided data to support the reforms.

At the minute, we have no oversight whatever of about 30% of our legal aid expenditure. If any other Minister else were to come to you and say, "There is £120 million in my Department, and I do not know where 30% of it goes or how it is calculated", you would rightly say that that Minister was being derelict in their duty. I am telling you that we do not and cannot —.

Miss McAllister: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: Yes.

Miss McAllister: It is important to note that the Public Accounts Committee, on which many MLAs in the Chamber sit, has also requested that that work be undertaken. Also, any regulations will be scrutinised by the Committee and in the Chamber.

Mrs Long: Absolutely. We are doing this so that not only the Department but the Assembly will have proper oversight of where public money is spent. That is vital.

There is some suggestion that we are trying to cut legal aid or work some kind of a move around it, so let me make this clear: taxed expenditure has increased by 160% from £23·2 million in 2020-21 to £37·7 million in 2023-24. That is 60·2% of the overall increase in legal aid spend during the period.

People may think that the Bar will say, "Yes, let's reform it so that we can no longer go down the taxation route, which is more lucrative, and we will go for time and line, which may, depending on the figures, be less lucrative", but it will not agree to that.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will in a moment.

The Bar has a vested interest in the system. It is not simply a group of professionals offering advice. It is offering advice in the same way as people would argue that MLAs should not be involved in setting their own salaries. I would argue that the Bar has a conflict of interest if it is telling us how to pay barristers and what the fee structure should be. We need to be wary.

It was interesting that the Member for North Belfast picked up on the fact that the Bar said that, if there were incentives for getting cases done more quickly, it might be able to do something about it. Surely, the incentive is that that is justice — that is the incentive. In many cases, justice delayed is justice denied. The fact that people so openly said that they could finish earlier if they had some incentive to do so suggests a degree of heel-dragging that has to do with the fee structure rather than the necessity of delivering justice in a particular case.

I will give way.

Ms Ferguson: I just want to note that it is about having a clear evidence base for the impact. You made an assumption that, if it were to change, more work could be done, but it could be the opposite. We do not know. We do not have the information on the impact that the change would have.

Mrs Long: With respect, we have the evidence. There was a 160% increase from 2020 to 2024. That was 60·2% of the overall increase in legal aid spend. We know that the cases that go through taxation are seeing greater uplifts than the rest of the legal aid system. The majority of cases do not go through taxation; they are not eligible for taxation. That is to the detriment of the rest of the legal aid system. We have the evidence to back that up.

Between 2016-17 and 2023-24, the average barrister bill for a taxed case increased by approximately 200% when adjusted for inflation, but we cannot identify why. The bills and the brief fees are so opaque that there is no way of telling where the increased costs came from and whether they were justified. The increase for solicitors when adjusted for inflation was a somewhat more modest 7%. That is 7% versus 200%.

Is it an attack on judicial independence? No, it is not. I get mocked regularly for saying that I respect the independence of the various parts of the justice system, and I do, because I believe that an independent judiciary is essential to the functioning of justice. When it comes to making decisions in the courts, sentencing, judicial reviews and all those things, it is right that the judiciary should not have to come cap in hand to me, as Justice Minister, or to listen to me opining on the role that it plays. Therefore, I will not attack judicial independence. The taxing master will continue to assess the costs claimed, but my Department has a legal obligation to manage its budget and to ensure that value for money is achieved when public money is spent.

There are precedents for the taxing master to apply hourly rates in that way; it is not a departure from normality. For example, under previous Crown Court remuneration frameworks, hourly rates were set by the Department for the taxing master to apply when assessing the costs for solicitors and barristers involved in what were termed "very high cost cases". There is a precedent for it. We are not introducing it with no experience of operating the system. We are not doing something that we have not done before. We are simply trying to recover the accountability and scrutiny that have been lost in recent years.

Members said that the decision to increase the hourly rate for solicitors and barristers' interlocutory fees had not happened for 10 years, so we could have seen it coming: that is absolutely true. However, no regard was paid to the impact on the public purse, nor was any consideration given to value for money. There was no public consultation. I have to consult publicly in order to increase the fees for any of the professions. There was no engagement with any democratically elected representative in the House about the decision to have a 53% uplift, and no statutory or regulatory impact assessment was carried out.

The Member spoke passionately at the beginning of her speech about the need for the rural impact to be taken into account and for people's human rights to be protected. None of that is protected under taxation, where no statutory or regulatory impact assessment is done. That would be done in this place were the amendment to go through. I am offering in the amendments the protections that, the Member says, she wants.

Given the potential implications for the public purse of any increase, officials attended the working group but in an observer capacity only. The officials confirmed with the chair that the Department could not be bound by or endorse any outcome of the review.

I have heard representations that it was an evidence-based and transparent process, but that is interesting in two respects when it comes to transparency. Initially, the Bar queried why we needed such a working group at all. The Bar did not want a working group, and it had "significant difficulty understanding" why the DOJ would be involved at all in applying inflationary increases. Even though it is DOJ money, the Bar could not understand why the Department was involved. The Bar, instead, highlighted the established practice of simply applying inflationary increases to interlocutory fees. Secondly, the terms of reference for the working group do not mention brief fees. Brief fees were not considered by the working group and were therefore not subject to any transparent, evidence-based approach. Therefore, it was not transparent, and it was not accountable.

I have a finite budget, and funding decisions are rightly scrutinised by the Committee and the Assembly. My decisions about legal aid fees are subject to affordability considerations and economic appraisal. However, in the case of the most recent increase to the rates and fees by the taxing master, the decision was subject to none of that. All our public services will ultimately be affected if we continue to allow that to happen. In setting rates and fees, we are simply asserting budgetary control. The taxing master will continue to be free to make the changes that they wish to make.

I am genuinely surprised at the level of opposition or scepticism on a minor amendment that clarifies that remuneration arrangements made under existing powers conferred by the articles in the 2003 Order would apply to anyone in assessing remuneration to be paid from legal aid. It is not a matter of curtailing judicial discretion, and it does not do away with the taxing master — we are retaining the taxing master — but it is a restatement of our power to implement a structure for how fees should be calculated. It is important to restate that at this time. Remuneration orders will be made under articles 12(3) and 24(3) to set out the legal aid rates and fees to be applied by the taxing master when assessing costs. It will simply give us more budgetary control and scrutiny.

The Audit Office said that legal aid frameworks should be reviewed to ensure that value for money is achieved. The Public Accounts Committee said that expenditure subject to assessment by the taxing master needed to be brought under the purview of the departmental accounting officer. This is the only way in which we can do that. We have evidence — this is important — that legal aid expenditure on appeals from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal, which is assessed by the taxing master, is significantly higher than corresponding costs paid by the PPS under its fee framework, through which it sets the fees and rates paid to prosecution barristers. Is it value for money if barristers paid out of the legal aid fund are paid on average nine times more than their equivalent who is representing the PPS? If two barristers with the same qualifications are acting in the same case, the one paid from the legal aid fund gets, on average, nine times more than the one paid by the PPS. KCs are paid, on average, six times more than their Public Prosecution Service equivalents. We talk a lot about equality of arms, and part of the point of legal aid is to have equality of arms, but how can we have equality of arms if one side is being paid, on average, nine times the fee of the other side? Are we getting value for money if we see no economic appraisal and no budgetary approvals or scrutiny, unlike the case for everything else to do with legal aid, of a 53% increase in solicitors' hourly rates? Is that value for money? Can we stand over that? I do not think that we can.

Legal aid expenditure on barristers in civil cases subject to taxation has tripled since 2015. We spend more on legal aid than we ever have done and rightly so. Provisional figures for 2025-26 show expenditure at almost £121 million, but £30 million of that, which is subject to taxation, should and will be subject to the same scrutiny as the other £91 million. That is incredibly important.

If the House rejects inserting the clarification from the 2003 Order, so be it. We will, however, still need to move ahead with reform, as articles 12(3) and 24(3) provide us with the statutory powers to set remuneration arrangements for all legal aid expenditure, including for the High Court and the Court of Appeal. I look forward to working with Committee members and the wider Assembly when they come to scrutinise the new remuneration framework for legal aid expenditure that is subject to taxation. Members have not had an opportunity to do that before, and I believe that they should.

The approach to reform addresses concerns from the Bar and the Law Society about removing the taxing master, addresses concerns from the Audit Office and the PAC about transparency and value for money and combines accountability with judicial expertise. I believe that we are strengthening governance but not compromising independence, and I encourage Members, before we vote on the amendments next week, to consider carefully what I have said about the escalation in taxed work and the escalation in fees. We have to ensure that there is clarity about how taxpayers' money is spent, and we need to prove to the public and our constituents that value for money matters.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, we now come to the ninth group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 96, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 97. Petitions of concern have been presented for amendments in group 6, so the vote on all subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List will not take place until a date after 29 June 2026. Instead of calling Paul Frew, as the sponsor of amendment No 96, which is the lead amendment in group 9, to move that amendment, I call him to open the debate on amendment No 96 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Frew: I will commence the debate on group 9, which is the final group of amendments to be debated at Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. We are into the sixth day of debate, although they have not been complete days of debate. That just shows the importance, the depth and the detail of the Bill.

These will be my final opening comments of the debate, so I want to take the opportunity to thank the Justice Committee staff; particularly the Committee Clerk, but all the staff who have supported members throughout the Committee Stage of the Bill. I also thank the officials in all the areas of the Department who have engaged with me in my capacity as my party's justice spokesperson and as Committee Chair. I thank them for their engagement not only with the Justice Committee but with all the Members who have taken an interest in the Bill and taken part in the debates. Finally, I thank the Minister for her contribution to all the debates, and I thank all Members for the calibre of the debates. There was only one night when it went off-piste. The rest of the time, there has been really good debate. I am heartened by the calibre of the debate that we have had in the House on the very detailed clauses and amendments and by what we have grappled with as legislators in this place. I thank every single Member for taking part.

My party's amendment No 96 relates to the day of release from detention. Our objective is to amend the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995 to allow for the release of a prisoner on a day other than a Friday or any day before a bank holiday. The rationale for that is that prisoners who are released on, say, a Friday afternoon without having accommodation organised often find themselves in a situation where Housing Executive offices are closed and will not reopen until the following Monday. That leaves them without accommodation for a whole weekend. It is not just about housing; it could be assistance with health, drug awareness or support, financial issues or a whole raft of things that might then lead to that person reoffending.

The amendment is not just about tackling reoffending rates. My party has always been tough on crime. This is about ensuring that we are smart on crime and smart on justice. The amendment goes some way to achieving that by supporting people who have served time in prison but have the same human rights as everyone else. They need that support. Many of those offenders have vulnerabilities that led to their imprisonment. We should acknowledge that.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the Prison Service officials, at the highest level, who met me to discuss and work through the amendment. I also thank the Turnaround Project, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) and everyone else in the sector, in charitable organisations and other organisations, who support prisoners in that guise. They all came together and met me to discuss the amendment.

Some of them — in fact, most of the groups that I met — were quite disappointed when I actually went through the detail of my amendment and they realised that it does not cover all prisoners. The amendment covers adult sentenced prisoners because only they are captured in paragraph 6 of rule 30 of the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, which I hope to omit. I will explain a wee bit about that because Members need the explanation.

Currently, five different kinds of release can take place on a Friday or Saturday. First, we have individuals who are released from court on a Friday after time served on remand. That is where a remand prisoner is produced to court on a Friday and sentenced to a period of custody that is shorter than the time that they have already been held on remand, and they are released forthwith. At that point, the Prison Service has no lawful warrant to further detain them. That can apply to adult sentenced prisoners and those who are sentenced under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. For both cadres of prisoner, release is immediate. Of course, having time served, and, in fact, in some cases, having already spent more time served on remand, they are released and free to go, because they have served their sentence. The problem there, of course, is the number of people whom we have on remand. However, 42% of remand prisoners are released by court, so there is that problem when they are just released —.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member will be aware of the work that the Lady Chief Justice has done to look at review of remand at earlier points in the week to, essentially, do the same thing for remand prisoners who may be released on bail, to avoid the same cycle that the Member is trying to deal with in the amendment.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that.

The second reason that prisoners are released on a Friday or a Saturday is that those are remand prisoners who perfect bail on a Friday. That is where bail may be granted by a court on any day from a Monday to a Friday. Despite bail being granted, it is common for conditions to be set by a judge that must be perfected or met before the prisoner can leave custody. Experience suggests that more bails are perfected towards the end of the working week, for example, where solicitors work with the PSNI to agree bail addresses, as sureties are met, and when other conditions, which can take some to arrange, are satisfied. Once bail is perfected, the Prison Service must release the individual, regardless of day of the week. Any work that gets going on that will be much welcomed.

The third reason is for prisoners who are sentenced under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. Those individuals are released on the day that they reach their custody expiry date, unless it falls on a Sunday. Individuals who are due for release on a Sunday are released on the Saturday. Article 8(6) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 eliminated remission of sentences that previously allowed prisoners to be released early, so prison rule 30 does not therefore apply to the prisoner group. Instead, those offenders must now serve their full custody period, followed by a period of statutory, post-release supervision. The only days that those prisoners cannot be released on are a Sunday, Christmas Day and Good Friday, a custom that is enshrined in section 12(2) of the Prisons Act 1898. In those cases, releases take place on the next preceding eligible day. We should also state that, in those cases, there will be a period of work whereby people are prepared for release.

The fourth group are prisoners whose release is directed by the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland (PCNI) on a Friday. With the exception of life-sentenced prisoners, the Prison Service is expected to release a prisoner on the day on which their release is directed by the Parole Commissioners. Therefore, PCNI-directed releases can be on a Friday. In most cases, as in the one that I have just talked about, those releases will have been planned some weeks in advance, so issues such as accommodation and other resettlement matters will already, hopefully, be in place. However, in some instances, where the Probation Board has not supported release, resettlement arrangements, including accommodation, will not have been made. However, release must take place, regardless. Therefore, there are areas in which prisoners are released that will not fall under the amendment. However, when I spoke to all the sectors and all the charitable and other organisations that were involved, they wanted my amendment to release all prisoners. Therefore, I ask, depending on how the debate goes, that we, if the House passes the amendment, consider, at Further Consideration Stage, thinking about those other prisoners. I ask the Minister to consider that also, because I would not want to do anything at Further Consideration Stage — if the amendment passes in the House tonight or on Tuesday — that the Department was not in lockstep with and supportive of.

So, this then goes on —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: I think that there would be some challenge for the Department in being able to do this more widely. First, there are potential unintended consequences of making changes. As you know, we consulted the Department for Communities and others who have statutory responsibilities, and, given the number of people involved, they have said that, whilst it will put pressure on services on Wednesdays, it is not insurmountable for them to deal with. However, were we to apply that to a wider cadre of prisoners, we would end up in a situation where it could become a cross-cutting issue, and we would then need to get formal agreement from the Department for Communities and so on. What we have at the moment is workable. We have been able to determine that, and we will support the amendment this evening. Maybe we can have a chat afterwards about whether it is possible to extend it beyond that, but I think that that might be more problematic.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I ask that that might be the case to explore the potential.

It really shook me how all the groups were aghast that my amendment did not cover all prisoners. Members should be aware that my amendment deals only with what they call "adult sentenced prisoners". They make up around half of our sentenced population at present. Those are the adult sentenced prisoners who are not subject to any form of supervision or licence conditions following their release from custody. Moreover, that group cannot be recalled to prison. My amendment would mean that, under prison rule 30(6) on remission of sentence, any individual in that category whose release date falls on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday is released on the Friday. Whilst there is no statutory requirement for the Prison Service to provide support to that group, prisoner development units offer some advice in relation to housing, finance, employment, addiction etc, and complete any necessary referrals to internal and external agencies prior to and on release. I do not believe that that is good enough, and there are massive gaps. Who tells me that? The charitable organisations, such as NIACRO, the Turnaround Project and others who work in that field. They have identified a gap and I have identified a gap, and I believe that the amendment is worthy of being passed by the House and supported by the Minister and the Department to ensure that prisoners are not released on a Friday.

The Prison Service will always be engaged in trying to get prisoners to court. Whilst it strives to release prisoners early on a Friday, that sometimes does not happen until lunchtime. When prisoners are released on a Friday at lunchtime, they will come to the point where some of the offices and services that they need to support them are shut. They might shut on a half-day on Fridays, or the phones might go off a couple of hours before staff go home. It is very hard for those prisoners to get support, and it means that they do not get support until Monday morning. Who knows what could go on? People can fall into old networks and friendship groups. Where does that lead them?

What are we talking about here? I have already said that this concerns about 50% of the sentenced population at present. In purely numeric terms, Prison Service release figures from the previous financial year, 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, show that a total of 1,208 prisoners in that category of adult sentenced prisoners were released. The figures show that 151 were released on a Monday, 173 on a Tuesday — that is, any given Tuesday throughout the year — 209 on a Wednesday, 215 on a Thursday, and 454 on a Friday. Interestingly, six were released on a Saturday, but they were in the category of fines only. Out of all those days, we see that more prisoners are released on a Friday. My amendment allows the Prison Service to release those prisoners on a Thursday and also have the option to release them on a Wednesday. Why is that so important? It is so that we do not create a bottleneck on Thursdays. That is really sensible. We are talking about allowing release on two days, which would allow people to get the services that they require, to get bedded in and to get a roof over their head in accommodation where they can safely lay their head. That would ensure that those who need support with drug addictions, or any other addictions for that matter, could get that help during the week — on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. They would stand a chance of getting the support that they require, and that might get them off to a good start in getting on with the rest of their life.

There is absolutely no doubt that adult sentenced prisoners are prisoners who are serving short-term prison sentences of two, three, four, five or 10 years. For whatever reason, those prisoners are more likely to reoffend. There is science out there on that topic, there are evidence bases, and assessments will have been done. I am not saying that my amendment will resolve reoffending, but we have to do better on that, and that goes for everyone who is involved in the criminal justice system. I believe that, from the human side of things, my amendment will be of assistance to people who are getting out of prison and want to make a better life for themselves. Having paid for their crime, they are out of prison and free of that sentence, and it gives them a chance. If it gives them a chance, it might just reduce reoffending, and it might stop someone else from becoming a victim.

That was me levelling with every single Member in the Chamber. I hope that everyone will assess the amendment for what it is and that it will be passed by the House. I hope that we can do more work to see whether we can expand the amendment at Further Consideration Stage to include more groups of prisoners. There will be prisoners who are completely supported and are prepared for their release date. We know the work that goes into preparing those prisoners for their day of release. They get temporary release dates: they are allowed out for a period in order to become accustomed to leaving prison, and that is all well and good. However, these adult sentenced prisoners do not get that support and are simply released into the world after serving a sentence for their crimes.

I believe that my amendment is essential and that we should explore how to expand it in order to accommodate further groups of prisoners.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: I have already said that we support the amendment. The Member will be aware that the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 sought to remove remission in respect of offences that are subject to Probation Board supervision and recall to custody. That was done for very good reason. The key, however, is that those who are under Probation Board supervision will often have their release planned weeks in advance. They will have had time to prepare, and they will have support from probation to find accommodation and resettle. There is not the gap that occurs with the other adult sentences that the Member is identifying. Therefore, from our perspective, the fact that we have that warning, which is because those individuals tend to be serving longer sentences, and can prepare in advance means that people are less likely to face the kind of challenges that the Member has suggested.

Mr Frew: I accept that from the Minister. That is why, at present, my amendment includes only adult sentenced prisoners. I was surprised by the level of discernment of all groups when I got them into a room and explained what my amendment did. Whilst they acknowledged that these were the prisoners in most need, they asked, "Why does it not just cover all prisoners? If it makes sense in this regard, it should make sense for all prisoners". Of course, as I have outlined, however, there are five different types of prisoner and five different ways in which they can be released on a Friday or, in some very limited cases, on a Saturday. I commend the amendment to Members.

I will take a moment to talk about amendment No 97. Tabled by Timothy Gaston, it is to do with the accommodation of women prisoners.

I know exactly what he is trying to do, and I support the amendment. It is common sense. It is what we need to do. Timothy Gaston tabled the amendment before the Minister could have, but we should all support it. When you look at court cases in Scotland in particular, including the opinion of Judge Lady Ross in the petition of For Women Scotland as recently as last week, in which she clearly defined the law in that regard, you see that there has been a misstatement of the law in Scotland. That view can and should be replicated here in order to protect people.

Of course we all have rights, and of course trans people have rights, but they are obviously qualified rights. Judge Lady Ross stated:

That cannot be clearer. The ruling continues:

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that he has read the detail of the ruling that was made with regard to the Scottish Prison Service. He will recall that part of the issue with the Scottish Prison Service's approach was that those in receipt of a gender recognition certificate were considered as women for the purposes of the legislation and were therefore automatically housed in a women's prison or, depending on the issue, in the male estate. As the Member rightly said, the ruling states:

It goes on — this is the bit that I want to draw attention to:

— that is the statutory scheme in Scotland —

We in Northern Ireland do not apply a bright line rule. We take each case and assess it on the basis of risk and how to best manage the safety and dignity of the individual prisoner and other prisoners on the estate. There is an issue with simply reading across the judgement made in the Scottish system, which is a bright-line system, that says, "This is how we will do it. Trans women will be housed with women in all cases". We have not taken that approach, and it would not be right for us to do so. We have to handle the issue sensitively, but safety always has to come first. The current assessment that we make of prisoners' safety and dignity, both for the trans person and for other prisoners who will be held alongside them, is really important.

At Hydebank, for example, while there are different prisons on the estate, there are shared facilities there. There are reasons why people can be accommodated safely in that context that may not pertain in other facilities in Northern Ireland.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will address the Minister's points, and I will then give way to my colleague Brian.

The Minister read out paragraph 181 of Judge Lady Ross's ruling, which I was going to read out. I will not read it out again. I was going to read the complete paragraph, which she has done. I was going to be fulsome in that regard.

Paragraph 182 states:

That ruling, from a judge at the highest level, should be accepted as a common-sense opinion on sex segregation in prisons not only in Scotland, even though there are differences in policy. It is a common-sense determination that means that sex segregation in prisons is and should be only according to biological sex. For that reason, we will support amendment No 97.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence, as I know that my contribution went a bit over time, but such issues are really important to raise. I thank Members for listening to me speak to the final group of amendments tonight.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Frew, for opening the debate on the group 9 amendments.

Members, this seems to be a suitable point at which to bring this evening's proceedings to a conclusion. The Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill will resume tomorrow, Tuesday 23 June, when we will continue the debate on the group 9 amendments.