Official Report: Tuesday 27 January 2026

Mr Speaker: Before the start of business this morning, I want to deal with an issue. Members know that, on many occasions, both in the House and in correspondence to Ministers, I have emphasised the conventions and rulings of the Assembly that make it clear that significant announcements should be made to the Assembly first.

This morning, there is wide-scale reporting in the media of the Infrastructure Minister's intention to introduce what she described as the:

It seems a substantial discourtesy to the Assembly and a significant breach of the normal conventions and expectations that there has been no request from the Minister to make a statement. Therefore, as I have previously made clear that I will do in such circumstances, I have selected a question for urgent oral answer to ensure that Members will have the opportunity to question the Minister.

Although, on this occasion, the issues relate to the Infrastructure Minister, such issues are not isolated to one Department. I received correspondence from the Committee for Communities that expressed concern about the sharing of information with the Committee by that Department, and I ensured that the Assembly had a specific opportunity yesterday to question that Minister on the report from the Commissioner for Standards.

I remind Ministers that the role of the Assembly is to scrutinise the work of Ministers and to hold them to account, and I will uphold that on behalf of the Assembly. Ministers should proactively facilitate that scrutiny.

Mrs Mason: School-leaders already wear many hats. They are educators, sometimes counsellors, carers and often managers. It now seems that they are expected to be weathermen and women, too.

We have seen amber and yellow weather warnings right across the North, particularly impacting on the east.

First, fair play to the school-leaders who had to make swift, difficult decisions this morning and yesterday to close their schools to protect pupils and staff. Those decisions were not easy, and they should not have had to make them alone. Equally, we have to recognise that not every school can make that call as easily. Different locations, transport issues, staffing pressures and access routes all matter. That is exactly the point.

The inconsistency and confusion could have been avoided if the Education Authority (EA) had stepped up and shown leadership. Instead, responsibility was pushed aside, and principals were told to assess conditions locally, with no clear direction, limited information and no coordinated approach. That left parents constantly refreshing their phones, unsure about childcare, work or whether it was safe to send their children to school at all. It especially impacted on families who have children in more than one school.

That responsibility should never have landed on the shoulders of school-leaders. It belongs to the Education Minister and the Education Authority. It was a complete abdication of responsibility. With proper planning, coordination with the Met Office and clear, timely decisions, that stress and uncertainty did not need to happen. Once again, when leadership was required from the Education Minister and the EA, it did not come. The safety of pupils and staff must always come first.

Mr Dunne: I rise today to highlight a real crisis on our roads network right across Northern Ireland. Our roads are in a shocking and dangerous condition in rural and urban areas in every corner of the country. Our roads are lined with thousands of wheel-wrecking potholes that are damaging tyres and suspension and only adding costly repair bills to hard-pressed families during these difficult times.

It appears that the Infrastructure Minister has lost control of her Department and has really failed to get on top of the issue. It is a clear dereliction of duty, given the significance of road safety and basic road maintenance across our roads network. Taxpayers rightly expect safe roads. Rather than focusing on divisive vanity projects, the Minister needs to get back to basics and fix our roads.

For too long, our roads have deteriorated. We saw it happen under the previous Minister, John O'Dowd, and it has got even worse under Minister Kimmins, who has now been in post for one year. The same Department that demands that our cars and vehicles are kept safe and in roadworthy condition totally fails when it comes to the condition of our roads.

This is a roads crisis, and people want urgent action, a clear plan and decisive action to fix it. People rightly do not want compensation forms; they want safe roads. Compensation forms are purely an admission of failure from the Department and the Minister. There also needs to be a much greater balance between often generously funded active travel schemes and basic road maintenance, which has been totally neglected over the past number of years.

Importantly, it also undermines the road safety messaging coming from the Department when our roads are in such poor condition. It compromises that important message. Motorists and all road users are impacted on and put at great risk from using the road, whether they are pedestrians, passengers, drivers and all vehicle users.

In my constituency, the A2 dual carriageway from Bangor to Belfast carries over 40,000 vehicles daily. A hard-working gentleman hit a pothole on Friday morning when driving to work, and it resulted in a damage repair bill of £450. That is just one constituent, but it is an example of how the Department for Infrastructure and the Infrastructure Minister are failing our communities, taxpayers and residents right across Northern Ireland. It is time for the Minister to stop deflecting, stop the excuses and fix our roads.

Mr McMurray: I rise to speak on Holocaust Memorial Day. I think back to a city break that I took to Berlin in 2018 with my wife. I cannot remember whether a visit was something that we had planned to do or whether we just came across it as we were wandering through Berlin, but we found ourselves at the memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe beside Pariser Platz. For those who have not been, I say that it is a collection of 2,711 columns.

Every column is of the same dimensions — approximately 3 feet by 7 feet — but they range in height, starting quite low at only 8 or 9 inches off the ground. When you start to wander amongst them and look across them, while they are still quite low, the columns do not seem to be of different heights going towards the centre. There is a slight slope to the ground, however, which drops the visitor towards the centre. As you start to walk in, the columns start to get taller, and, before you know it, they are 10 to 15 feet high, towering over you. Light struggles to get in at that point, and, while the columns are of a fairly uniform grid pattern, such an oppressive feeling is created; it is like a maze to get out of. I have often reflected on that darkness; the feeling of oppression; and being unable to see a way out, whether that be up, down, left or right. I also think of the gentle slope that took me to that point and the gentle, unthinking walk that led me to the centre. Before I knew it, I was in the middle of it.

I attended an event last week, hosted by Open Doors. It was very moving. I am lucky that I can attend my place of worship freely every week. I am lucky that my faith does not come with repressions such as those that others have faced. Freedom from and freedom of religion are important pillars of our liberal democracy. In the fractious world that we live in, we see systems being challenged. Let us not forget the mistakes and horrors of our past. We see an increase in Islamophobia and antisemitic behaviours across our society. Today, on Holocaust Memorial Day, I remember those who were persecuted by virtue of their faith, cultural background, disability or sexuality. I reaffirm my desire to make physical the metaphorical structures that I may never use for those who need shelter in our society. Let us never find ourselves in the middle of those columns.

Ms D Armstrong: I place on record my serious concerns regarding the decision by Fermanagh and Omagh District Council to establish what it calls an Irish unity working group. Let me begin by acknowledging the basic facts: yes, the decision was taken in accordance with the council's standing orders and, yes, the stated purpose of the group is:

The real issue is not with how the group was created but what it is doing and how far it has drifted from any neutral or exploratory role. In a council report to its policy and resources committee, dated 20 January 2026, reference is made to the council proceeding:

The same report refers to organising:

Finally, it refers to arrangements that are being made:

Those are not neutral terms, nor are they balanced formulations. They do not describe an impartial assessment of competing constitutional futures; they describe active preparation for a specific outcome. There is no evidence that council officers have, at any point, cautioned the working group about the shift in language or direction, or that they have taken steps to ensure that the council remains within the bounds of political impartiality. If such evidence exists, I would, of course, be willing to consider it, but none has been presented to date.

Local government has a clear responsibility to serve all ratepayers, regardless of constitutional aspiration. It must also avoid the reality and the perception of political advocacy on matters of this kind. References to preparing, planning or otherwise advancing a particular constitutional outcome raise serious questions about whether the council is still meeting its duty of neutrality.

As an MLA and a ratepayer in the district, and having listened to constituents, I am absolutely entitled to challenge what I regard as a clear example of local government overreach. The promotion or facilitation of a constitutional agenda, funded by ratepayers, falls well outside what many people would reasonably consider to be the remit of a district council. Councils exist to deliver services, manage local infrastructure and improve the everyday lives of the communities that they serve, not to involve themselves in constitutional engineering.

This is not about shutting down debate but maintaining clear institutional boundaries and good governance. It is also about protecting the principle that public money should not be used to promote one side of a deeply contested constitutional question. That is the basis of my concern, and that is why I believe that the matter deserves serious scrutiny.

Mr McGrath: This Thursday, 29 January, is Stroke Prevention Day. It is important to raise that matter here today, because there are more than 42,000 stroke survivors living across Northern Ireland.

In my constituency of South Down, over 2,000 people are rebuilding their lives after a stroke; more than 2,500 people live with atrial fibrillation; and over 16,000 constituents have high blood pressure. That could be 16,001 after some of the debates that we have in here of a day. High blood pressure is one of the leading causes of stroke and is responsible for around half of cases.

Figures for the whole of the UK show that, every five minutes, someone will experience a stroke. The Stroke Association is concerned because, without urgent intervention and attention, it looks like that figure will move quickly to one stroke every three and a half minutes by 2035. That means that we will see a substantial increase in the number of people who are affected.

We know that stroke can destroy a life in an instant. Across the North, at least two people every hour are at risk of losing the ability to see, speak, move or even swallow as an impact of a stroke. It remains the fourth leading cause of death across the UK. The question that is always asked is whether it has to be like that. The Stroke Association is urging the public to protect themselves by regularly monitoring blood pressure and taking steps to maintain a healthy level and a healthy life. Of course, prevention is always much better than cure. That means eating well, avoiding smoking and vaping, staying active and limiting alcohol consumption.

One practical action that the Assembly could take is the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol. For Members interested in the evidence base for that, the all-party group on stroke will hear from Professor Colin Angus of the University of Sheffield this Thursday. He is one of the UK's leading experts on modelling the effectiveness of minimum unit pricing in Scotland, where it has been in place since 2018.

We must also be clear about the wider implications. The societal cost of stroke is expected to rise sharply as incidences increase. That reflects not only the need for intensive rehabilitation and long-term support but the economic impact on survivors who are unable to work and the families who care for them. As we approach Stroke Prevention Day on Thursday, let us commit to taking the necessary action to reduce the devastating impacts of a stroke.

Mr McHugh: Déanfar Lá Cuimhneacháin an Uileloiscthe a chomóradh an tseachtain seo. Tugann sé deis dúinn ár machnamh a dhéanamh ar na hainghníomhartha ab uafásaí a rinneadh ar an chine dhaonna. Tá sé tábhachtach go ndéanaimid ár machnamh ar an tréimhse uafásach úd ionas go dtuigfidh muid an crá, an phian agus an fuath a bhí ann nuair a céasadh agus a dúnmharaíodh an oiread sin daoine.

Tá cúpla bliain ó shin, thug mé cuairt ar Auschwitz, an sluachampa géibhinn ba mhó de chuid na Naitsithe, inar maraíodh thart ar 1·1 milliún duine. Chuaigh na déantáin phearsanta agus na taispeántais inar léiríodh an taithí scanrúil sin, chuaigh sin go mór i bhfeidhm orm. Bhí sé thar a bheith coscrach. Ba chóir Lá Cuimhneacháin an Uileloiscthe bheith ina rabhadh dúinn uile faoi na rudaí a d'fhéadfadh tarlú mura dtugtar dúshlán an fhuatha, an dídhaonaithe agus na fuarchúise.

Is gairm chun gnímh é Lá Cuimhneacháin an Uileloiscthe do chách atá tiomanta chun cearta an duine agus chun an daonlathais. Éilítear orainn seasamh le chéile i gcoinne frith-Sheimíteachas, seineafóibe, ciníochas agus leithcheal de gach sórt. Tá dualgas morálta orainn an comhionannas, an ceartas agus an tsíocháin a chosaint agus seasamh go daingean in aghaidh an chinedhíothaithe atá ar obair san am i láthair.

Ms Forsythe: Today, we have seen the publication of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report 'Leading and Resourcing the Northern Ireland Civil Service', and it is damning. We speak a lot here about the pressures that public services and finances are under, and I consistently highlight the need to deliver efficiencies and manage services better through transformation. Many hard-working individuals contribute substantially to the Northern Ireland Civil Service daily, but, with more than 24,500 staff, they and the structures need to be managed and coordinated better. With millions of pounds invested in shared services, the management of Northern Ireland Civil Service staffing and HR lies with the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, and today's Audit Office report sets out clearly his failings to take action and get a grip on the situation. Where is the ambition from the Minister to wage war on the waste in government?

When publishing his multi-year Budget plans, the Minister said that he was in listening mode. I hope that he is listening to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the report, which clearly identifies areas in which he has failed to act. The report follows up the 2020 Audit Office report 'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service' and a subsequent report by the Public Accounts Committee. Five years have passed, and only five of the 23 recommendations made by the Audit Office in 2020 have been achieved, while just five of the 12 PAC recommendations have been delivered. The same issues are still being reported; in many cases, they are worse.

We see a greater reliance on temporary staffing solutions in the Civil Service, with nearly 5,000 agency workers employed in 2025, more than double the number recorded in 2019. What has John O'Dowd done to tackle the soaring cost of agency staff? It sits now at over half a billion pounds. What has the Finance Minister done to tackle sick leave in the Civil Service? It cost £48·8 million in 2024-25 and has been steadily increasing, with an average of 13·4 staff days lost in 2024-25 compared with 12·6 in 2018-19. The Civil Service declared nearly 5,500 vacant posts on 31 March 2025. In addition, over 3,000 staff were temporarily promoted, which represents 13% of the workforce.

The report has found a lack of progress in key strategic areas. It notes concerns about the reliability of data and highlights a failure to see action on previous recommendations. Surely, with proper workforce planning, those costs can be driven down. John O'Dowd needs to take action to deliver efficiency. The question is this: is he really in listening mode?

Mrs Guy: I cannot believe that, in 2026, we are still debating the right of girls to wear trousers in school. It is not a radical proposal. Walk down any high street and you will see young women and girls wearing trousers in everyday life. Allowing the same right in school simply reflects the real world and the real practicalities that girls face.

This is not about politics or ideology but about comfort, dignity and equality. Why should girls be less comfortable or, during cold winter months, less warm simply because of outdated uniform rules? What makes it especially frustrating is that the Education Minister already has the power to act. Rightly, he is moving to amend statutory guidance to ensure that children can wear their own coat to school. The same mechanism could now be used to make it clear that school uniform policies must allow girls the option to wear trousers. There is no legal barrier, cost implication or educational downside.

In the absence of that simple action from the Minister, the Committee for Education is introducing a Bill to bring about the change. We all know that primary legislation should not be necessary to correct something that could be resolved through simple, sensible guidance from the Department. It may not be the biggest issue facing the Assembly, but it may be the easiest. Unlike so many other challenges, it has something rare: political consensus. I am aware of no party that is intent on blocking the change.

If we want people to believe that we can tackle the big issues, we must prove that we can deliver on the small ones. When time is short and resources are tight, it is time for pragmatism. It is time to show people, especially our young people, that we can act to deliver change for them. I appeal sincerely to the Minister to make the change. Act now to save Assembly time, Committee resources and public money. We have the Youth Assembly before the Education Committee this week to provide evidence on the issue.

Minister, I hope that you will listen to them. If I and other Members cannot persuade you to act, I hope that they can.

Mrs Cameron: Today marks Holocaust Memorial Day. This year's theme is "Building Generations". This evening, people across the United Kingdom will take part in the "Light the Darkness" national moment at 8.00 pm. We will gather not only to honour the six million Jewish men, women and children who were systematically murdered alongside the millions of other innocent victims of Nazi persecution but to confront the truth about the hatred that enabled the Holocaust. That hatred did not end in 1945. The Holocaust did not happen overnight. It was a result of years of tolerated prejudice, escalating discrimination and widespread indifference. Step by step, words became actions and actions became atrocities. History shows us, with devastating clarity, where unchecked hatred leads.

That warning is deeply relevant today. Across Europe and here in the United Kingdom, antisemitism is rising at an alarming rate. Jewish communities face harassment, vandalism, intimidation and violence. Families are made to feel unsafe simply because of who they are. Let us be absolutely clear: antisemitism has no place in our society. It has no place on our streets, online, in our institutions or in our political discourse.

One of the most powerful lessons of the Holocaust is about the cost of indifference. Silence in the face of rising antisemitism is not neutrality: it is failure. We must also recognise the power of words. The Nazi regime used propaganda to dehumanise Jewish people and normalise hatred. That same pattern is visible today, where conspiracy theories and online hate are allowed to spread unchecked. When language denies people their humanity, violence is never far behind.

Of course, education remains our strongest defence. Last Friday, I attended a Holocaust memorial event that was hosted by the Monkstown Community Association on behalf of Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. It was deeply encouraging to see Hollybank Primary School's P7 pupils leading the way in learning about the Holocaust and expressing their knowledge through art. We also heard powerful testimony from Melvyn Goldberger, the son of a Holocaust survivor, reminding us why remembrance is essential.

Today, we honour the victims, not only with remembrance but with resolve; resolve to confront antisemitism wherever it appears, to defend our Jewish communities and to ensure that "never again" is a living commitment and not an empty phrase.

Mr McReynolds: In April 2024, I presented a petition to you, Mr Speaker, which had been signed by 4,500 people and called for the commissioning of ADHD services in Northern Ireland. I pleaded with the then Health Minister to meet ADD-NI to discuss the need for those services in Northern Ireland and the impact that they would have. Since then, I have also pleaded with the current Health Minister to meet us, and I am pleased to say that we got that meeting with the Health Department. At that meeting, we made clear the urgent need for departmental intervention for those who are living with the condition, and, crucially, those who are potentially living with it, in Northern Ireland.

A report was commissioned, and we were told that it would be finished by the end of the 2024-25 financial year. We were then told that it would be finished by the start of the summer, which then became the end of the summer and then Christmas. Now, we are told that it is finished and with Health officials, but it still has not been published for anyone other than the Department to review. I am chair of the all-party group on ADHD. We are being held back from doing all that we can in the Northern Ireland Assembly to support the ADHD community. The report is already 20 years too late, and we cannot meet to discuss its findings because we still have not even seen them.

I am pleased that the Health Minister is sitting in front of me as I make this statement. I urge him to do the right thing and take that important first step by publishing that report to get change and justice for children, young people and adults alike across Northern Ireland. For too long, people who live with the condition have struggled and lived in silence. The ADHD community is positive, driven and proactive. We will not stop fighting for the justice that it deserves in the face of the removal of shared care arrangements, lengthy waiting lists for diagnosis and the impact of the lack of support on stress levels, which can include self-medication, substance abuse and mental health issues.

Mr Buckley: One of the most important tasks of any Economy Minister around the world is to ensure that their country is a welcome place for investment and job creation, in order to ensure that their citizens have the best chance to thrive in any sector. However, Sinn Féin's foreign policy outlook is damaging the Northern Ireland economy. Who would have thought that aligning yourself with despot regimes, giving cover to global terror gangs and supporting hard-left communist posturing would be so unattractive to international investors?

Last week at the Economy Committee, it was revealed that major US financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald withdrew an offer of 300 jobs for Northern Ireland last year. The Minister was in quite a tailspin when she was asked about the reasons for that withdrawal. There was plenty of bluster, but there were no hard answers. The Speaker talked earlier about Ministers not explaining their actions to the House. What about their not explaining their actions to a scrutiny Committee? By the end of the following day, the Minister's note of that meeting had been released to the BBC, but she has still not provided clarity on her actions to that scrutiny Committee. I have submitted further detailed scrutiny questions on the issue. I will submit FOI requests and whatever it takes to get to the bottom of why those international jobs — such jobs have gone to Dublin and London — did not come to Belfast.

We thought that Sinn Féin would have learned the lesson about what global posturing means for international investment, but it seems not. The Sinn Féin Economy Minister is not long home from a £15,000 taxpayer-funded trip to China, during which she met the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries. That organisation sounds very benign, but the US Government have banned their government organisations from interacting with it because of espionage. However, our Economy Minister is happy to tow up alongside those communist dictators. That country — we do not hear anything about human rights abuses in this regard — harvests organs from its citizens, puts its minorities in forced labour camps, and persecutes Christians. The double standards and hypocrisy know no bounds. It is damaging to job investment. Be assured that Sinn Féin will be held accountable.

Mr Speaker: I call Gerry Carroll. You have a couple of minutes, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: It is clear that the United States is a country that has been steeped in violence and suppression from the get-go. Parties in the House, especially the unionist parties, would do well to remember that fact as they clamber to celebrate everything red, white and blue this year. What we have witnessed since its creation, but especially in the past few months from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is nothing short of fascistic violence from the biggest army and superpower in the world. In recent days, we have witnessed ICE agents violently arresting a five-year-old, Liam Ramos, and deporting him and his family to Texas, which is a state that they never wanted to go to. Just a few weeks ago, we had the execution of a mother, Renee Good, who was shot dead in cold blood for the world to see. Last Saturday, the world witnessed the killing of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, who was a nurse in a local hospital — a veterans' hospital, no less. It seems as though, in the US, there is a Rodney King-type moment every week, with the state's going further and executing people, and it is recorded. Once again, attending a protest can be a death sentence for too many people in the United States. Alex Pretti intervened when he saw an ICE agent pepper-spraying a woman in the face. Despite the lies projected by Trump and others, he was using a phone at that event, but still he was deemed worthy of execution by a trained armed operator. That action — that execution — was committed by somebody who was well trained and funded by the US Government.

There are now major questions for the Executive parties about the response that they will take to the US regime. Will they continue to go out of their way to have a cosy relationship with that corrupt and rogue regime? It was bad enough when the US invaded Venezuela and snatched its president for a show trial and when it made threats to Greenland. It is decision time for the Executive and the Taoiseach. Will they support that regime or shun it? The best chance to shun it is to refuse to go to the White House on 17 March.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the twenty-seventh North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) health and food safety sectoral meeting, which was held in Armagh on Wednesday 14 January 2026. I chaired the meeting, and was joined by junior Minister Aisling Reilly MLA, who attended as the accompanying Minister. Jennifer Carroll MacNeill TD, Minister for Health, represented the Government of Ireland. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Reilly, and I make it on behalf of both of us.

I will begin by addressing the issue of health. The Council welcomed the cooperation of officials from the Northern Ireland Department of Health, the Department of Children, Disability and Equality in Ireland and the other relevant Departments in the area of disability. Ministers noted the commitment of the Northern Ireland Department of Health and the Department of Children, Disability and Equality in Ireland to upholding the rights of people with disabilities in line with the principles set out by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ministers agreed that officials should explore potential options for collaboration and knowledge exchange and provide an update at a future meeting.

The Council welcomed the progress made to date on implementing its work programme in the health sector and noted that both Departments of Health have identified additional areas where there is potential for further development and collaboration between the health authorities in both jurisdictions. The Council agreed the proposed revisions to the work programme and noted that work to ensure that the work programme reflects the priorities of each Administration will continue. In receiving an update on ongoing cooperation between the two Health Departments, the Council noted that the all-island paediatric cardiology training scheme qualification has been added to the General Medical Council's list of recognised specialist qualifications, which will enhance workforce mobility and cross-border collaboration. The NSMC noted that the potential for future cooperation on perinatal and paediatric services continues to be explored.

The Council was advised of ongoing work between the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the National Ambulance Service and of the fact that work is progressing on harmonising clinical and operational procedures, updating the memorandum of understanding on mutual aid and improving control room interoperability.

The Council noted that 10 cross-border healthcare PEACE PLUS-funded projects have launched and are in their start-up phase. The consideration of an eleventh health project is under way.

The NSMC noted the ongoing work on Exercise Pegasus, which concerns UK pandemic preparedness and in which representatives from Ireland have participated as observers.

Cooperation on cancer care is a long-standing element of the health work programme. The Council received updates on recent developments in that area. The Council noted the ongoing work by the North/South cancer policy and strategy group, which most recently met in October 2025, on progressing the delivery of cross-border cancer services. Ministers noted the benefits, for patients, of the ongoing cooperation on and expansion of radiotherapy services at Altnagelvin Area Hospital and welcomed further cooperation on services provided through the North West Cancer Centre. The Council noted that the inaugural all-island paediatric oncology conference was held on 16 and 17 October 2025. Ministers welcomed the development of a project shortlist of areas of cooperation to be considered further, with the aim being to improve cancer services for patients across both jurisdictions.

The Council noted the prevalence of rare diseases on the island of Ireland, the benefits of cooperation on rare diseases and the commitment to promoting and strengthening that cooperation. The NSMC noted that the ongoing consideration of opportunities to collaborate on efforts to support those from across the island who live with rare diseases will continue, and Ministers welcomed the ongoing work in both jurisdictions to improve the lives of those who live with rare diseases, including the work of the all-Ireland rare diseases interdisciplinary research network.

The Council noted a presentation on obesity, which provided an overview of diet and nutrition, physical activity and health weight-related outcomes in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the existing cooperation on initiatives to address obesity, including the all-island obesity action forum and the all-island healthier food environment forum.

I turn to food safety. The Council considered a progress report outlining Safefood's high-level achievements since the previous health and food safety sectoral meeting. Those included Safefood's roll-out of a further iteration of its food environment multimedia campaign, with the broader goal of encouraging societal change for a healthier food environment for children's future health and ultimately driving potential policy change; and Safefood's Clean As You Go campaign to remind people about the need to wash hands, work surfaces and utensils, especially when preparing raw meat, with the aim of reducing the risk of food poisoning from cross-contamination in people's homes.

Next, the Council noted the collaborative approach undertaken by Safefood to deliver its remit, including working with partners such as the Irish Football Association, the Gaelic Athletic Association, Northern Ireland local authorities and public-sector organisations; the launch of Safefood's new, free healthy eating resource, 'Fuel Your Game', in Croke Park; Safefood's support of the launch of newly revised nutritional standards applying to all facilities that serve food and beverages in Health and Social Care settings in Northern Ireland; and Safefood's continued work with the district and borough councils in Northern Ireland to provide free food safety training for small businesses in their respective areas.

Penultimately, the Council noted the ongoing roll-out of the 2025-28 community food initiatives programme, which aims to positively influence healthy eating habits, especially those of low-income families, through promoting greater access to and availability of healthy and safe food using a community development approach. Finally, we noted the research carried out by Safefood on a range of topics, including obesity, food poverty and health inequalities.

The Council considered various governance matters relating to Safefood, noting its revised business plan for 2025 and that the 2024 annual report and accounts were being audited. The NSMC approved Safefood's business plan for 2026 and recommended the associated budget grant provision. The Council also approved Safefood's corporate plan for 2026-28 and a post regrading in the body.

The Council acknowledged the retirement of Dr Gary Kearney as chief executive officer of the Food Safety Promotion Board/Safefood and the valuable contribution that he had made to the work of the body in various roles since 2002. The Council also noted that the outgoing CEO, Dr Kearney, had designated Ms Patricia Fitzgerald, Safefood director of corporate operations, to carry out the functions of the CEO from 1 January 2026 until the new CEO is in place. Ministers approved the appointment of Dr Joanne Uí Chrualaoich as the new chief executive officer of the Food Safety Promotion Board/Safefood with effect from 19 January 2026.

Finally, the Council agreed that the next NSMC health and food safety sectoral meeting will be held in the autumn of 2026.

Mr McGrath: We are aware that there is a crisis in our Ambulance Service. Response times are deteriorating, not improving, under the Minister's watch. Was any opportunity taken to discuss mutual support between the two ambulance services, especially for 999 emergency calls, which have better response times in the South than in the North, that could help people in border communities such as Fermanagh, south Armagh and south Down?

Mr Nesbitt: I can confirm that there is ongoing cooperation between the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the National Ambulance Service. I direct the Member to look at ambulance handover times over the additional winter pressure periods, particularly in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust area, where the target time of two hours was met more often than it was failed.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): Minister, your statement covered a lot of important issues, and there is a lot to be welcomed, particularly the GMC's recognition of the all-island paediatric cardiology training scheme. All sectors of our health service, when I engage with them, talk about training and recruitment as key issues affecting workforce and, ultimately, patient outcomes. How many trainees are expected to benefit from the cardiology training scheme? Are there plans to extend similar all-island specialist training schemes into other clinical areas that face workforce issues in the North?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not have that number, but I will certainly write to the Member when I have ascertained the figure. As a matter of principle, I am keen to look at all-island training cooperation.

Mr Robinson: I cannot speak highly enough of the good work of the North West Cancer Centre. Can the Minister detail to the House what plans there are to expand services at the centre?

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member: the North West Cancer Centre is an exemplar of good practice and of cross-border cooperation. As I have said many times, the border does not demark health and social care needs; it highlights the fact that we have common goals and common purposes to treat common problems.

The Member will be aware that there is a huge deficit in the Department of Health's budget for this year. In order to avoid a strike and make sure that the workforce got their pay entitlements this year — I will not say "pay rises", because staff would dispute that it is a pay rise, given the rate of inflation — we will have a big problem next year. The idea of expanding services is therefore not on my agenda, I am afraid. I would love it to be, but it is not. My agenda is to shift left into the neighbourhood programme.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his statement. We have talked many times about how patients in Northern Ireland cannot access chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dublin has said that it is unable to offer more patients from Northern Ireland that treatment, but did the Minister have any further discussions about it or any other life-saving cancer care and treatment cooperation between North and South at the NSMC meeting?

Mr Nesbitt: I did indeed bring up CAR T-cell therapy, because I wanted to confirm with the Minister for Health in the Irish Government and her officials that what I have been telling the House is accurate, which it is, but I say once again that a very specific clinical environment is needed to carry out CAR-T. That certainly does not exist in ward 10 north at Belfast City Hospital, which is the current haematology ward. The new ward will not come on stream until perhaps 2031, but the plan is to have a new ward that will be compatible with the exercise of CAR-T. In the meantime, we have asked officials from the Department of Health in Dublin whether they could increase their capacity to include patients from Northern Ireland. Their current capacity is maxed out from dealing with their own patients in the jurisdiction. Even if their capacity were to expand, we would get there with our new ward before they would be able to service us.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. I had the pleasure of joining him recently on a visit to the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH), where he again had the opportunity to see at first hand the significant level of work that is under way there to tackle Northern Ireland's waiting lists. Will the Minister continue to engage with his Southern counterpart to explore future opportunities for greater North/South cooperation in order to sustain the hospital as a site with a solid future ahead of it?

Mr Nesbitt: In my first address to the House as Minister of Health, one of the points that I made was that I had no political or ideological objection to sensible cross-border cooperation on health and social care — in fact, quite the opposite — so, as a matter of principle, I will always look at ways in which to expand cooperation.

The Member will be aware that, at the South West Acute Hospital, there were, for a long time, two uncommissioned theatres and wards, although one has now been commissioned and is being used extremely successfully for orthopaedics: hips and joint replacements. Over 75% of people are going in, getting their new knee or hip and getting home on the same day. There is more potential, however. On that visit, as the Member will be aware, not only did we see magnificent things being done but we got a real sense from the workforce that they want to do more. They said, "Please, let us do more", and I am keen to try to facilitate that. We need to stop putting an exclusive emphasis on the one thing that is not happening in the SWAH and start celebrating all the wonderful things that are happening there.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am really happy to hear that conversations were had about children, both in death and in life. Can he give the House any update on the paediatric pathology services that were discussed at the meeting, as well as on rare diseases? I think specifically about an issue on which I have been asking for a meeting with the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG): children with specific types of dwarfism.

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, there was a discussion about paediatric pathology. The issue has not budged: there is a global shortage of paediatric pathologists. The two authorities are scoping out what they need for the two jurisdictions. Once we have done that, we will come together to see whether it is possible to have an all-island solution. Given the global shortage in that workforce, it seems ambitious to try to get an all-island solution and overambitious to try to get two solutions. We are in that process, and it is taking time, but that is the way it is.

One of the themes was rare diseases. Individually, they are rare, but, collectively, they are common and affect over 400,000 people on this island. We have made good progress on implementing the Northern Ireland rare disease action plan, but more can and will be done. We are exploring possibilities for collaboration. Most recently, we looked at a Shared Island proposal to establish an all-island metabolic network that would bring equitable care from robust services as close to home as clinically possible. Those conversations continue between officials. It is not as though the issue only comes up on the rare occasion when there is a sectoral meeting.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister, for bringing a sense of reality to the House on the capacity in the Republic of Ireland to deal with our problems.

You said that you:

Will you outline what those additional areas are and say whether there will be action on them?

Mr Nesbitt: We are in the foothills of those discussions. There will be another sectoral meeting — that is the plan — in either the autumn or, at the very latest, early January. The Government of Ireland take on the presidency of the European Union on 1 June, which may shift their focus to some extent. Either way, before the end of our mandate, there will be another sectoral meeting. At that meeting, I expect officials to detail where those additional areas for potential cooperation are. However, I am not in a position to say to the Member, "This is where I want us to go".

Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for his statement today. We have heard many times about the potential for cross-border cooperation on health, so the statement is positive.

You said:

What specific commitments have been agreed, and what practical changes will people with disabilities see as a result of that cooperation?

Mr Nesbitt: Again, there were no specifics mentioned at the sectoral meeting, but I will certainly take that question away, because, in fairness, it is important, and come back to the Member with something a bit more substantive.

Ms Ferguson: Cooperation and collaboration on research and treatment pathways for rare diseases offer clear benefits for people across the island, particularly given the population that we have across the island. Minister, you stated that there is a commitment to promoting and strengthening that work, and you mentioned exploration of a metabolic network. Will you outline the practical actions being taken to support and advance that across the island?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member makes a good point about population size, because, as I said, rare diseases may be individually rare, but, collectively, they are common, with about 410,000 people on the island suffering from some sort of rare disease. To be able to do proper research and design proper and effective pathways, you always need a minimum population size. In neither Northern Ireland nor the Republic is the population big enough to crack that for some rare diseases, but, on an all-island basis, we cross the line into what is possible. In order to achieve what we want to achieve, we try to adhere to four principles: improving diagnosis; increasing awareness among healthcare professionals; enhancing the coordination of care; and boosting access to specialist services and treatments.

Mr Gaston: As part of the ongoing work between the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the National Ambulance Service, was the issue of crews not being alerted to category 2 calls in the last hour of their shift due to the ongoing action short of strike highlighted as a major concern? Have you any update for the House on bringing the action short of strike to an end to ensure that category 2 calls are assigned to crews within the last hour of their shift?

Mr Nesbitt: There was not a specific discussion about the issue, which, I know, is important to the Member. The two services continue to make steady progress in strengthening joint arrangements for cross-border emergency responses under the North/South specialist ambulance response programme. Work is progressing on harmonising clinical and operational procedures, updating the memorandum of understanding on mutual aid and improving control room interoperability.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Although there is no specific reference to CAR-T in the statement, I welcome the fact that it has been raised at the North/South cancer policy and strategy group on a number of occasions since Catherine Sherry's passing from blood cancer in May last year. Catherine's birthday would have been next week. Notwithstanding your previous answers, Minister, what progress has been made on planning for the delivery — not the business case — of CAR-T in blood cancer units in Belfast? What progress has been made from a cross-border perspective on CAR-T, as referenced in the minutes of the group's meeting of 25 October?

Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry for the loss that the Member refers to. As I have said previously, you need a specific, clinically secure environment for CAR-T. Ward 10 north at Belfast City Hospital does not cut it. I have visited 10 north. Let me put it this way: if a visitor asked to see how well we look after patients and how good our facilities are in secondary care, you would not take them to 10 north in Belfast City Hospital.

There will be a new haematology ward in Belfast City Hospital. Speaking off the top of my head, I think that the current delivery date is 2031, so it is a number of years away. Once we have it, we will be able to do CAR-T. I have told the Member before that we have spoken to the Department of Health in Dublin. It is maxed out in capacity, and increasing the capacity there to service us would take longer than it will take us to open our new haematology ward and deliver CAR-T in Belfast, according to our current schedule.

Mr Chambers: What assessment does the Minister have of the impediments to cross-border healthcare? Does he believe that there is an appetite on both sides of the border to resolve those impediments?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. As I said in my statement, the all-island paediatric cardiology training programme qualification has been added to the General Medical Council's list of recognised specialist qualifications. That will enhance workforce mobility and cross-border collaboration. That is something that Jennifer Carroll MacNeill and I went on to discuss. The barrier of asymmetrical qualifications — qualifications that do not migrate or are not recognised in both jurisdictions — is an impediment. As the two Ministers, we tasked officials with scoping out the qualifications that do not apply equally in the two jurisdictions and bringing us the list at the next sectoral meeting, where we will take action. When I talk about action, I mean that we are both prepared to write jointly to the appropriate professional bodies, if that is necessary, to try to ensure symmetrical qualifications that are recognised in both jurisdictions.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement. Members, take your ease before we move to the next item.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister for Communities to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following the introduction of additional measures to the Pension Schemes Bill, I seek approval of a subsequent legislative consent motion (LCM) to include provision for two of those amendment measures. The timeline for progressing the Bill through Westminster presents several challenges for introducing corresponding measures through an Executive Bill. It would not be possible for an Executive Bill to be passed by the Assembly in time to align with the operational dates for certain provisions of the Westminster Bill. Given the fact that such a delay would result in the provisions not being in place in Northern Ireland at the same time as in the rest of the UK, I am bringing an LCM to extend two measures of the Westminster Bill to Northern Ireland, in addition to the five that have already been agreed on. The new provisions in the Bill concern pre-97 indexation and the funding of the board of the Pension Protection Fund. They were introduced subsequent to the Assembly vote on the LCM on 18 November 2025, and thus need to be agreed.

I will give a brief overview of the two new provisions. Clause 109 relates to the pre-97 indexation of the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme. It enables the payment of inflation increases, which is known as indexation, on pension benefits for compensation schemes accrued before April 1997. The measure will ensure that compensation from the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme on pensions built up before 6 April 1997 is linked to CPI inflation up to a cap of 2·5% and that it applies prospectively for members whose schemes provided mandatory or statutory inflation increases on pre-1997 pensions. It is a positive measure and will boost the incomes of those affected.

Subsections 4 and 5 of clause 116 of the Bill seek to amend the Pensions Act 2004 to implement changes to the Pension Protection Fund and fraud compensation levies. Legislative consent is required to allow for the administrative expenses of the Pension Protection Fund and the Fraud Compensation Fund to be met by the reserves within those funds. The Pension Protection Fund and the Fraud Compensation Fund are UK-wide schemes. Therefore, it is essential that provision is made for Northern Ireland to be included.

If it is agreed that clauses 109 and 116(4) and 116(5) of the Bill should extend to here, it will allow those important provisions to be enacted at the same time across the UK and ensure that citizens of Northern Ireland benefit from their introduction at the same time as citizens in the rest of the UK. Whilst I seek to avoid using the LCM process, where possible, it is sensible to use it to secure, for Northern Ireland members, the pension scheme benefits afforded by those provisions by agreeing to an LCM in respect of the listed clauses. The intention is that a parity Bill will be brought before the Assembly for all relevant remaining clauses in the Westminster Bill.

I am aware of the Assembly's role in considering legislation, and of the Committee's scrutiny role in particular. Whilst Standing Order 42A(9) does not invoke a requirement for the Committee to report on subsequent LCMs, details on the amendment measures have been provided to the Committee for Communities, and officials will provide an additional briefing to the Committee at its meeting on 29 January. The preference would have been to have conducted that briefing in advance of today's debate, but time constraints connected to the progress of the Westminster Bill have not afforded the opportunity for longer consideration. I therefore beg to move that the Assembly agrees the motion.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his remarks. As Chairperson of the Committee for Communities, I will contribute to the debate on the second legislative consent motion for the Pension Schemes Bill.

Members will recall that, in November 2025, the Assembly debated and provided consent for an initial legislative consent motion on the Bill. At the time, the Committee for Communities had had the opportunity to receive departmental briefings, seek written evidence from stakeholders and publish a comprehensive report supporting the extension of those provisions in the North. However, the situation today is somewhat different. The subsequent motion has become necessary because, following our previous debate, the British Government introduced further amendments to the Bill at Report Stage in the House of Commons on 3 December 2025. The amendments introduced new provisions regarding pre-1997 indexation and the funding of the board of the Pension Protection Fund — matters that were not part of the Bill when the Assembly originally granted its consent.

The Minister for Communities laid the legislative consent memorandum for the new provisions last Monday, 19 January 2026. The Committee for Communities had the memo added to the pack for information only at its meeting last Thursday, 22 January, but a briefing could not be offered before this week. The Order Paper indicated that the debate was scheduled for today, so the Committee has, in effect, had no opportunity to receive a departmental briefing, call for evidence or undertake any scrutiny of the measures in advance of the debate. It would be useful to know when the addition was notified to the Department, because, clearly, the Department may be receiving things late in the day from Westminster, and it is important that we seek to tighten up on that, if possible. Westminster should be aware that such a situation has an impact here.

Consequently, I must inform the Assembly that the Committee was unable to reach a formal position on the legislative consent motion. I therefore cannot offer the Committee's endorsement on the basis of evidence-based scrutiny, but I can, for Members' benefit, place on record the intent of the provisions as outlined in the memorandum provided. The Minister has provided some detail on the issues at play.

While the Committee has not scrutinised the specific clauses, we are familiar with the broader arguments about parity in pension legislation. The Department reiterates that, although pensions are a devolved matter, we operate, in effect, a single system across Britain and here. The urgency is driven by the legislative time frame in Westminster, and the Bill is anticipated to attain Royal Assent by spring 2026. The Department has advised that, if the provisions are not extended to the North via the Bill, we will require a separate Assembly Bill to maintain parity. The Department argues that the delay caused by a separate legislative process could mean that citizens here would not benefit from the changes, specifically the potential boost to income from pre-1997 indexation, at the same time as those in Britain. Clearly, we do not want that situation to arise.

In conclusion, the Committee for Communities has consistently taken the view that, where possible, legislation on devolved matters should originate in the Assembly, and the Minister made a similar point. We also prize our role as scrutineers, and it is a matter of regret that the legislative timetable at Westminster has precluded the Committee from performing that function on these late-stage amendments. However, the Committee has no desire to obstruct what appear to be positive developments. We note the Department's assurance that the pre-1997 indexation will make a meaningful difference to members' incomes and that the funding changes will simplify the levy landscape. Therefore, whilst I must formally state that the Committee has had no opportunity to reach an agreed position, I can indicate, as Chairperson, that I support the principle of the motion so that people in the North are not disadvantaged and can access the benefits on the same timeline as those in Britain.

Mrs Dillon: Notwithstanding the issues outlined by the Committee Chair, I will take the opportunity to say that it is important that we get these measures in place. I have placed on the record before that I welcome the Minister's work in the area, specifically on early access to pensions for those who are terminally ill. That is worth reiterating today. Whilst we have not been able to carry out the scrutiny fully, we must ensure that those who need early access to their pension because they are terminally ill get it and get the appropriate amount of money. That is really important.

I commend the work of Marie Curie in lobbying the Assembly's all-party group on cancer and MPs at Westminster to ensure that people who are terminally ill will get access to the pension that they have worked all their life to pay into. It is only but compassionate and empathetic delivery to ensure that they can access their pension when they are terminally ill so that they and their families do not face financial hardship.

I therefore place on record the work that has been done and welcome the legislative consent motion, notwithstanding the Committee's inability to scrutinise the memorandum. Let us hope that we can see the provisions delivered for the people who most need them: the terminally ill, who need early access to their pension, and their families.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Communities for the broad welcome that he and the Committee have given to the moves.

I recognise the fact that the Committee did not have proper time to scrutinise the legislative consent memorandum. I assure the Chairperson, the Committee and the whole House that that was not because of some lack of desire on my part to ensure that the Committee got to undertake proper scrutiny. As is often the case with many such Bills that originate in Westminster, there are time pressures involved, and I understand that the Committee has expressed concern about the approach taken by the LCM on other matters, and I will address that concern in due course.

I have raised those issues in conversations with Stephen Timms and other Ministers and told them that respect needs to be shown for the devolved processes. I understand that there are times when things move quickly as a result of things needing to be done owing to time pressures at Westminster, but Committees in this place should, without exception, be able to undertake proper scrutiny. I recognise that circumstances sometimes do not allow that to happen, but I make it clear that it is certainly not because of any lack of want on my part to ensure that the Committee can play its role.

I hope that Westminster's approach will change in future so that Committees get the time that they need to scrutinise LCMs properly. I believe, however, that the main issues have been rehearsed. Maintaining parity is key for the most important reason, which is to ensure that people in Northern Ireland are treated in a fair and equal way.

I note Mrs Dillon's comments. We have talked about the issue a number of times before, and it is an area of agreement. I have worked with UK Government Ministers on it, and I also pay tribute to those who have been lobbying for the change to be made. We often talk about the need to support those who are most vulnerable, and it is certainly the case that people who experience end-of-life issues have not only financial pressures that come to bear on them but accompanying huge emotional distress. We therefore want to make sure that people are helped and that those who have paid into the system get the benefit from having done so in the time that they have left. I therefore thank the Member for continuing to raise the issue and assure her of my commitment to ensuring that we will do what we can here to address it. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, I ask that you take your ease for a few moments.

Ms Bradshaw: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this 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.

Ms Bradshaw: I rise to speak to what should be a straightforward and urgent matter: the long-awaited response from the Executive Office on the findings and recommendations of research into the deeply sensitive issue of clerical child sexual abuse, which was submitted by the interdepartmental working group to the Department in July 2025. The research was substantial and comprised three independent projects that had been commissioned by the Executive Office: a review of historical records; an oral history of the experience and expectations of victims and survivors; and an in-depth review of safeguarding policy and practice in faith-based organisations. The research was designed to inform policy on how the Executive will address the legacy of clerical abuse and on the prevention of future abuse in faith-based settings.

That work was shaped, in large part, by the survivors' reference group. I acknowledge the courage of the victims and survivors who participated and their generosity with their time. They participated at significant personal cost, because they believed that telling their stories would lead to accountability, justice and reform. The Alliance Party's concern today is not about the quality of that work but about what has happened — or, more accurately, what has not happened — since. Members will know that throughout the mandate and beyond, I have consistently raised issues of institutional and clerical abuse in the Assembly and with departmental officials. I have done so on behalf of the victims and survivors who shared their experiences with me directly and spoke with courage and openness in the hope that that would lead to action.

Listening to those experiences and hearing how abuse continues to shape their lives, years or even decades later, fundamentally changes how one understands delay and inaction. That is why the absence of visible progress since the reports were submitted to the Executive Office is so concerning. To understand why that delay matters so deeply, we need to confront a more difficult question: how was the abuse allowed to continue unchecked and able to remain hidden for so long? Uncomfortable as it is, the answer speaks to the power that was held over young people and vulnerable adults by institutions and individuals. That power was exercised in settings that were presented as places of safety, morality and care, in which children were taught to trust authority and not question it. Those were trusting young children, teenagers and adults, some of whom were already isolated, struggling and seeking reassurance for belonging when they entered environments that they were told were safe. Instead, they experienced betrayal, often by people whom they were encouraged to trust. As that betrayal came with authority, many did not have the confidence to speak up. When some did speak up, they were dismissed or silenced. That dynamic of silence, power and fear is the central reason for the abuse remaining hidden for so long.

Survivors speak of two harms: the abuse itself and the decades of silence and institutional indifference that followed. That is why responsibility for acting with urgency now rests so heavily with the Assembly and the Executive Office. That frustration has been articulated powerfully by survivors. Nikella Holmes, who contributed to the research, has said that survivors:

Those words should give us all pause for thought.

It is also important to make clear that such abuse was not and is not confined to one denomination or faith. The institutions and the perpetrators differed, but the victims did not. Unfortunately, as we in the Assembly know all too well, the same patterns emerged in many different faith-based settings with different forms of abuse, whether that was against the children who were put in children's homes, in the case of the historical institutional abuse, or against the vulnerable mothers and pregnant women who were put into mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and, sometimes, workhouses.

The harm does not end for victims and survivors when the abuse ends: it follows them into adulthood, shaping their relationships, their mental and physical health and their sense of safety in the world. Delays like this reopen wounds, retraumatise survivors and force them, once again, to sit with uncertainty, waiting for acknowledgement that what they endured mattered and was wrong. When it first became clear, last summer, that little movement had followed the submission of the research, I publicly expressed concern about the lack of progress and the need for timely engagement with victims and survivors. Unfortunately, those concerns remain.

In recent months, I have raised the issue at the Committee for the Executive Office with departmental officials, and I have tabled a series of questions for written answer seeking clarity on whether those reports will be published, whether an action plan is being developed and whether funding and a clear timeline for delivery have been identified. The responses have followed a similar pattern. We were told that the findings were being carefully considered, that no decisions had yet been taken and that officials remained committed to keeping victims and survivors informed. The difficulty is that survivors do not feel informed, and I know that all MLAs received a letter at the start of the year outlining their concern on that. They have felt that they have been left waiting. That is not victim-centred, and that is not trauma-informed practice. We use those terms very freely right across our public services, but, when communication is not forthcoming and that communication line is flat, victims will once again feel that they are being silenced.

It should not take the tabling of a motion in the Chamber for action to follow. I am aware that, yesterday, an email was received by campaigners at 6.32 pm from the private office offering a meeting with the junior Ministers. I welcome that and will not be churlish about it, but Members need to know that that request for a meeting was submitted on 19 November. Survivors were encouraged to engage in the process in good faith, and those delays in responding severely risk undermining the trust on which the whole process depends. Victims and survivors understand complexity. They accept that serious findings and recommendations take time to consider. What they find very difficult to understand — rightly so — is why requests for information or meetings go unanswered and why engagement so often follows only when political pressure is applied. As Anthony Gribben of the Dromore group has said, it really is:

This is not a time for haste; this is a time for political leadership. Complexity cannot excuse a lack of communication with the very people whom this work is meant to support, particularly where sensitivity and survivor well-being must come first.

I want to pick up on a point that Patrick Corrigan of Amnesty International raised with MLAs this morning in an email. He said:

I do want to impress upon that. This is different. I have already outlined the issue of historical abuse of children in homes and in mother-and-baby institutions. We know from stories that have been coming forward and from the inquiries that have been going on in some of the Churches that this remains today and is a current safeguarding issue in some places.

The motion does not ask Ministers to pre-empt outcomes but asks for action, transparency and accountability. The publication of publicly funded reports should be forthcoming shortly. A clear and funded response to the recommendations and clarity on the Executive Office's position on the recommendation for an independent public inquiry are all essential if trust is to be rebuilt.

Before I finish, I want to address the People Before Profit amendment, which seeks to ensure that religious and other institutions take proactive steps to preserve relevant records as a matter of basic responsibility. Records matter for accountability, for truth and for survivors who may one day seek answers. They will rely on records for those. We will certainly support Mr Carroll's amendment, and I thank him for tabling it.

The Assembly has a responsibility to ensure that the work that it commissions leads to meaningful outcomes. Supporting the motion is about meeting that responsibility. For victims and survivors, it is about finally being listened to and heard. For that reason, I urge Members to support our motion.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gerry, you have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. All other Members who are called to speak in the debate will have five minutes. Gerry, please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion for bringing it to the Floor and for supporting my amendment. I will expand upon it in my speech. It is important, in a general sense, that we have a process in place that recognises the deep hurt caused by clerical institutions towards people who they were supposed to be caring for. At least tens of thousands of women and children were directly failed by those institutions. Families were ripped apart, and children and young babies were neglected and, effectively, killed by those institutions through malnutrition and other acts of abuse and harm. I do not believe that they have truly atoned for their crimes. I support the motion, as I said, and hope that the amendment adds to and strengthens it.

Families that have been in contact with me and others are asking that the First Minister and deputy First Minister publish the research reports that they have been sitting on. They feel that the process is taking far too long. The survivor stories, I am told, make for very hard reading: it is believed that they, in themselves, could force MLAs to act much more quickly and to support legislation coming through, if the reports are published.

There is also concern about the First Minister and deputy First Minister having failed to meet victims since the reports were commissioned in July. Some people are asking whether the reports have been read at all. I note, as the proposer of the motion did, that a letter was sent out late last night. It is not for me to comment on that, except to say that I suppose that people have been bounced into action by the motion, so it may be a case of saying, "Fair play" to the proposer of the motion. People ask why things are taking so long. How long are victims and survivors supposed to wait to get proper justice?

I want to focus many of my comments, at this stage, on Milltown cemetery and issues connected to it. That is not just because it is in my constituency; other Members have raised issues about it in the past. It is not just because people have come to me with huge concerns, which I will detail in a second, but because the cemetery provides a snapshot of the scale of the abuse that took place over many decades and of the outstanding issues for victims and survivors, which, I imagine, are replicated in other places. Some information has been aired publicly through media stories and representations by victims, survivors and others at Stormont Committees, but those need to be properly heard today, with other issues being added to them.

It is clear that religious institutions, with the full support of the state, failed those mothers and babies, when they were alive. What is not focused on so much in the debate in general, however, is how they have also been failed in death. It has been documented that at places such as Milltown, Tuam cemetery in the South and other places —.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that the dioceses, particularly around Milltown, need to work with families and those who are trying to find the remains of their loved ones? Those people were somebody in their lives, even if they were not somebody to those institutions.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. I totally agree with that point.

Going back to the point about Milltown, there is particular concern that there could be mass graves under landfill. Bodies have actually been moved around because of unmarked burials. Some documentation exists for burials, but there are unmarked burials as well. Burials took place at the Poor Ground from 1937 until the 1990s. Adults, children and thousands of infants are buried there. Once the Poor Ground had been filled with burials, Milltown was due to close it in, I think, May 1980. Various articles reported that that would happen because there was no space left to bury people. That did not happen, however. Some of the land was used, by the diocese of Down and Connor, for landfill. Money was taken from skip companies and construction companies, and receipts exist for that. It is not clear, however, when dumping took place on the land, what happened to the body parts.

I call on the Executive Office to ensure that those documents are hunted down, analysed, protected and secured. The diocese has refused to bring back all the 37 acres. It purchased a fraction of it. Presumably it knows what is underneath it and does not want to be liable for it. Families that presented evidence about some of that to the Executive Office have requested that that land be tested to find the exact location of their relatives. Not everybody may want that, but some certainly do. I understand that records are available for at least 11,000 people who are buried on that land in the cemetery, most of whom were infants from Belfast hospitals, mother-and-baby homes, children's homes, workhouses, Catholic institutions and private addresses in some of the poorest communities.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that time is running out for the victims and survivors of clerical abuse at the hands of monsters such as Paul Dunleavy and Malachy Finegan, as well as for those survivors' wives, husbands, children and families?

For the First Minister and deputy First Minister to sit on their hands and not make a decision on the recommendations of this courageous report adds to the trauma and heartbreak that victims and their families continue to endure.

Mr Carroll: I agree with the Member that time is running out and about the lack of speed, to put it mildly, from the Executive Office. I totally agree with that.

As I said, there are 11,000 records available of babies and infants buried in the Milltown site. It is believed, however, that there are many, many more for whom records do not exist or are being destroyed. I do not know what is happening or what needs to be done to secure those records. Like, I am sure, most others in the House, I am concerned primarily about the victims and the families of people who need answers and justice. People in my constituency and beyond — many people from beyond West Belfast are buried in Milltown — may not know whether their loved one is buried in Milltown or, in some cases, who is buried beneath their loved one in the same grave. That is important, especially to people for whom religious burial is important, as it is to many across our society. Graves are still being sold now that could well contain the bodies of large numbers of infants. There is too much secrecy from the diocese and the Catholic Church around that.

Records and documentation are extremely important, as the mover of the motion mentioned. The Executive Office needs to do everything possible to protect them. I am keen to hear from the junior Minister about what TEO is doing already to seek and protect those records to ensure not only that the true scale of abuse and neglect is charted and that people who are entitled to compensation get it but that those who seek information about loved ones — I appreciate that not everybody will, but some do — and what happened to them get that information. It should be readily available to them. There are women alive today who went through those institutions and had babies removed from them in all sorts of horrible circumstances. They deserve some semblance of truth and justice. They deserve answers as well.

I have sent questions for written answer to the Health Minister seeking confirmation. It is my understanding that most hospitals across the North — certainly, in Belfast, at least — had grave plots in Milltown that were sold back to the diocese of Down and Connor in 1994. Organ theft took place. I understand that some organs have been returned, but the practice was pretty widespread. At the time, the British Government had an anatomy inspector who went round the homes and institutions to secure the bodies without any consent from family members. What documentation exists about that? That is obviously horrible and gruesome, but it is also serious stuff. What has the Health Minister sought out? What has TEO done about that? What communication have they had with the British Government?

There is a willingness across the board to get a cross-departmental group to act on the recommendations. However, my fear about all things cross-departmental is that they move at a snail's pace. Victims need and deserve a public inquiry, an action plan and a multi-annual budget commitment. Time is of the essence. As I understand it, there may also be another issue — I am keen to hear the Minister's response to this — which is that, when people die and are buried in council cemeteries, the council registrar issues a funeral card and documentation that is kept in council archives, but the state, certainly historically, allowed the Catholic Church to have its own records. My understanding is that the paperwork that gives the authority to bury a body is called a "green form". Again, what work has TEO done to secure that paperwork? That needs to be focused on as well.

We also need to have a conversation about and a focus on Church assets. Churches are wealthy organisations. Archbishop Eamon Martin has tried to claim that seizing Church assets is opportunism. You would think that he would have a bit more humility. That is nothing more than an attempt at deflection. Church and state have collective responsibility. If they did not act appropriately, which they did not, there need to be consequences. An immoral, legal scheme was created whereby women were incarcerated and abused for decades and tens of thousands of children died — were killed — or were taken from their mothers and trafficked across the world. That was completely disgusting and horrible, but it was legal.

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

Mr Carroll: I will. It was allowed by the state and those who ran institutions. To claim that we cannot design a system in which compensation is paid out fairly is simply untrue. I urge Members to back the amendment and the motion.

Mrs Dillon: First and foremost, our thoughts are with all victims and survivors of clerical abuse. That abuse was a profound betrayal, and, for many, the harm was compounded by silence, denial and institutional failure over many years. Those responsible occupied positions of authority and trust and used that power to shield themselves from scrutiny. We see so often that abusers are people in a position of trust. That is how they get access to those whom they abuse.

The motion is not about institutions protecting their reputation but about people. It is about victims and survivors whose lives were fundamentally altered and who have shown extraordinary courage in coming forward. Their voices must lead the way on how truth is acknowledged, accountability pursued and meaningful change delivered. I pay tribute to the survivors' reference group, which Paula and others have acknowledged, and to all those who have campaigned to raise awareness of abuse in faith-based settings. Many have shared deeply personal and painful experiences so that others would be believed and so that the scale of harm could no longer be ignored. That courage places a responsibility on all of us in the Chamber to listen carefully and act responsibly. There is concern that the research findings and recommendations on clerical abuse have not yet been made public. Survivors rightly seek transparency and clarity.

At the same time, it is essential that we get this right. The proposer of the motion said that it is not about haste but about getting it right, and I appreciate that. Engagement and communication must be prioritised, and I acknowledge that it must be continuous and respectful and must be shaped by lived experience. It cannot be limited or sporadic. Any next steps must be taken carefully, ethically and with the well-being of survivors to the fore. Survivors should never feel that decisions are being made without them. They should be confident that we in the House and those making the decisions want those decisions to be developed thoroughly, responsibly and in a way that will stand the test of time.

Access to records, as outlined in the amendment, is a central issue for many victims and survivors. I absolutely support the amendment. We have learnt from previous processes that truth and accountability depend on the preservation, proper storage and disclosure of the records held by many institutions. There should be no circumstances in which a religious order destroys records. Religious and other organisations should take proactive steps now to ensure that relevant records are not only not destroyed but protected and made accessible to those seeking information about their experiences. No institution should be allowed to destroy or conceal material that could assist survivors. Unfortunately, as has been seen recently across different denominations, it is not simply a historical issue. For many, it is a live and ongoing reality. Full and open disclosure should be considered to be the minimum standard for institutions seeking to demonstrate that they take their responsibilities seriously.

It is also essential that allegations of abuse continue to be investigated thoroughly and sensitively and that victims and survivors who wish to pursue justice through the courts be supported in doing so in a compassionate and trauma-informed way, including by the police. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. Victims and survivors should be supported through the process in whatever way is required.

Finally, while addressing the legacy of clerical abuse, it is vital that we ensure that the conditions that allowed such abuse to occur are never repeated. I have some concerns in that regard. We still hear the narrative about abusers being strange people whom we cannot trust, yet people say of abusers, "He's a nice guy", "He's a lovely guy", "I know him", "He's my brother" or, "He's my friend". Abusers are charmers. They are nice people. That is how they get access to children, young people and vulnerable adults. We need to ensure that the narrative changes so that everyone understands that the abusers are among us. They are people whom we know and, sometimes, love. We need to stop talking about them as though they are strange beings from another place: they are not.

Victims and survivors have shown leadership through their resilience and determination. Our responsibility is to ensure that their voices remain at the centre of this work —

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

Mrs Dillon: — that the truth is not delayed or denied and that they and all abused victims are believed.

Mrs Cameron: Our party supports the motion and the amendment. It is incredibly important that the records are preserved, so the DUP is content to support the amendment.

This is a deeply sensitive and distressing issue, and it is vital that our focus remains firmly on the victims and survivors of clerical child abuse — people who were profoundly failed by institutions that should have protected them. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to engage with victims and survivors in my previous role as a junior Minister in the Executive Office, and I recognise the courage that it took to speak out about the often unspeakable experiences that too many endured. For many survivors, the harm did not end when the abuse ended; it was compounded by years of silence and denial and a lack of accountability. That lasting trauma must be recognised honestly in the Chamber.

The three independent research projects commissioned by the Executive Office marked an important step forward. They examined how institutions responded to allegations, recorded the lived experiences and expectations of victims and survivors and reviewed the safeguarding policies of faith organisations. I place on record my sincere gratitude to the victims and survivors who took part. Coming forward to share deeply personal experiences of abuse takes immense courage, and no one should underestimate the emotional toll that that process involves. I also pay tribute to the survivors' reference group and other campaigners, whose persistence and determination ensured that those voices were heard and that the issue could not be ignored or quietly set aside.

While that work has been completed, victims and survivors deserve clarity about what happens next. They deserve transparency, consistent engagement and confidence that their experiences are shaping outcomes. Let me be clear: this is not about delaying action, nor is it about avoiding difficult decisions. It is imperative that the next steps are the right steps, and our collective response must be victim-centred and trauma-informed. The focus must be on getting this right, not on creating quick headlines.

The recommendations under consideration will, no doubt, raise serious and complex questions, including on their scope, access to records, their cost and, crucially, their impact on victims and survivors. That is particularly true on the question of a public inquiry. That is a decision that should never be taken lightly, but, equally, victims must not feel forgotten while deliberations continue. Ongoing communication and meaningful engagement are essential, and survivors must be kept informed throughout the process. The issue should never be politicised. I believe that Members across the House recognise the responsibility that we carry.

In supporting the motion and the amendment, our objective is clear: ensuring that the response delivers truth, accountability and meaningful outcomes for victims and survivors. As we all know, the victims and survivors have waited long enough, and they deserve nothing less.

Mr Butler: The debate must begin and end with the victims and survivors of clerical child abuse and their families, who have carried the weight of that abuse for decades, at its centre. Their suffering did not end when the abuse stopped; for many, it was compounded by the silence, disbelief, denial and deliberate institutional protection of perpetrators. To each of those victims and survivors and their families, I offer my heartfelt support and that of my party

In 2018, the Pope paid a visit to the Republic of Ireland. I was the only unionist representative to attend at that time and was put under the microscope by a number of people. One of my overriding reasons for going that day was my hope that the Pope would make a sincere and heartfelt apology and, more than that, outline what that Church was going do to redress the imbalance of evidence. That did not happen in 2018, and, sadly, a lot of those families and victims still feel that they are without justice.

However, it is not just the Catholic Church but every institution of faith that needs to look into this. As someone of faith, I say that churches in particular should be a haven for children, women and men. They should set the standard and not fall below that bar. Churches and faith-based institutions did not merely fail to act; in too many cases, they actively concealed harm. Abusers were moved between parishes and dioceses, warnings were ignored, evidence was buried and truth was treated by people in authority as an inconvenience rather than their moral duty. That silence magnified the pain of the victim. It told victims that their lives mattered less than reputations. That stain cannot be erased and must never be repeated.

Every Member in the Chamber has, as a legislator, a responsibility to ensure that what happened is fully exposed and understood and never allowed to happen again. Learning the truth is not an act of hostility towards faith; it is an act of justice for those who were betrayed by institutions that they trusted. As legislators, our primary duty is to defend the rights of victims and survivors and to pursue justice without fear or favour. There can be no loopholes for powerful institutions. There can be no hiding place in legal technicalities, internal processes or claims of autonomy when it comes to withholding evidence or reports. No institution, religious or otherwise, should be permitted to destroy, conceal or sanitise records that relate to the abuse of children.

The motion states:

and — there is a helpful amendment, which we will support — expresses regret for the lack of meaningful engagement with victims and survivors since that time. I have stood — and sat — in the Chamber many times as we have said that that would be a priority. It is time that we put those words into absolute action.

I once again pay tribute to the survivors who have courageously shared their deeply personal experience of abuse in faith-based settings, often at great personal cost. In particular, I recognise one such person who has spoken very bravely: Margaret McGuckin. Her bravery in speaking out has helped force the issue into the light and has given voice to those who were silenced for far too long. We therefore call on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to publish the reports in full, to set out a fully funded and time-bound response and to clearly state their position on the reported recommendations for an independent public inquiry. We would like those steps to be taken sooner rather than later.

Ms McLaughlin: I support the motion and pay tribute to every victim and survivor who has come forward to share their experiences of abuse in faith-based settings. Survivors are incredibly strong and courageous, not only for speaking to someone, often for the first time in their lives, about what they have suffered but for continuing to push for accountability for others as well. Let us be clear that justice matters not only for those who have gone public but for those who have never told a soul and who remain too traumatised to speak about what they endured. When survivors are listened to, respected and believed, that sends a really strong message to our society that it is prepared to confront uncomfortable truths rather than bury them.

Honestly, it is shameful — I find it difficult to understand — that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister appear to have had so little meaningful engagement with victims and survivors since the independent reports were submitted in July 2025. The reports were commissioned by and delivered to the Executive Office, yet we have seen far too little transparency, far too little urgency and far too little respect for the very people who have already waited far too long. I understand — I will say this carefully — that, given the sensitivity of the issue, it is right that careful consideration be given, but that cannot be an excuse for delay, it cannot mean silence, and it certainly cannot mean survivors being left in the dark once again, wondering whether the system will fail them yet another time.

The motion is not only about justice for those who have experienced abuse; it is about ensuring that it is never repeated on such an industrial scale. That means action. It means having safeguards that are real, enforceable and effective. It means ensuring that warnings are not missed and investigations are not avoided or brushed aside and that the systems that are meant to protect children do exactly that. It means having robust procedures, proper record-keeping and a culture of accountability, where the protection of children is always at the heart of decision-making.

As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I have sat through countless hours of evidence-gathering on institutional abuse, including at the Magdalene laundries. Listening to those testimonies is not something that you forget. I have heard first-hand about the devastating impact that abuse has had on families, not only on individuals but across generations, because trauma does not end when childhood ends. It shapes lives, relationships and well-being for decades, and it can be carried through families long after the abuse itself. For many survivors, what they are asking for is not complicated: they want to know that they are being listened to; they want assurance that their experiences are being treated seriously; and they want to see that someone in the system is prepared to fight for accountability on their behalf. That is why I support the amendment from Mr Carroll.

We also have to be honest about where responsibility lies. I have engaged over many years with many victims, predominantly, but not exclusively, from the Catholic Church. As with other powerful institutions, it has often sought to cover up abuse and paedophiles within its ranks, denying survivors the truth to protect the Church's reputation, rather than the children's, and that must end. There can be no special status, no deference and no closed doors when it comes to child protection. Full cooperation with investigations and oversight must be the absolute minimum. Religious institutions must be held accountable. They must not be allowed to avoid scrutiny, and they must not be placed above the law, the truth or the rights of the victims and survivors.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge one fundamental point: we cannot engage constructively on the best way forward unless we know what those reports contain. We cannot shape a response, test whether it is adequate or measure whether it is properly resourced —

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

Ms McLaughlin: — and we cannot build public confidence and trust. They must be published, and it must be addressed.

Ms Ní Chuilín: We will support the Alliance motion and the People Before Profit amendment. I agree with everything that everyone has said, apart from that said by Sinéad McLaughlin and Justin McNulty, because I know that Aisling Reilly and Michelle O'Neill are not shameful. I want to put that on the record. I understand the difficulty and frustration that survivors are feeling about not getting any communication. I cannot stand over that, but to say that people are sitting on their hands and are shameful is not fair.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will.

Ms McLaughlin: It is shameful that those reports have sat since July 2025, because we are hurting the victims. The longer that those reports sit and are not published, the more that it hurts victims. I feel ashamed that that has happened.

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate the clarification, but that is not what I heard. The Member is right: for people who are going through the worst trauma in their life to respond to a call, be part of a report and then not hear anything back is not good enough. I agree with that.

The work that has gone on up to now has been on historical institutional abuse (HIA) and the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. The Committee Stage is still in progress, and the Committee hopes to conclude its report this week. There have been problems up to now, but, by and large, we have all approached the issue with compassion and sensitivity. Communication was key throughout. I was not on the old OFMDFM Committee when the Inquiry into HIA Bill was being dealt with, but I have spoken to many victims — most of whom were in mother-and-baby institutions, and some of whom suffered clerical abuse — about the fact that this is not about just their trauma but the trauma that was passed on to their families.

Gerry raised a point about records. I have raised that constantly throughout the process. I declare that I was a the keeper of the records when I was the Minister in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and then the Department for Communities. There were inconsistencies in the records kept by the religious orders and other institutions, including social services and the health and social care trusts. The PSNI has been consistent and forthcoming. Robin Swann promised that records from throughout the adoption process would be kept consistently, and that did not happen. Legislation was brought through on that. I hope that the legislation on the mother-and-baby homes will address some of the concerns of the victims and survivors of clerical abuse and that that will be rectified.

The scourge is not just historical; it is recent. We hear, on television and radio, about case after case of people being abused by people in the Catholic Church, as well as allegations regarding the Presbyterian Church and others. As part of the deliberations at another Committee, I heard about the abuse that some young gay men faced through so-called conversion therapy, done in the name of faith. That needs to be included in this as well. That was absolutely horrendous, and it was done across the board.

Church leaders need to take steps, and so do we. I want to see and talk to the victims. I want us to get to the next stage of this. I am glad that a meeting has been offered, but I hope that it is not a one-off, because those people deserve respect and for us to act with integrity. Above all else, they need to be believed.

Miss McAllister: I thank my party colleagues for tabling the motion, and the Committee for the Executive Office for all its work on clerical child abuse. I will start by highlighting a few points that we have all acknowledged. First, clerical child abuse did not happen just to children under the care of the state in institutions. It happened to families and young people who participated in church-based masses, Sunday services, Sunday schools, youth groups and outings. We have to understand that it did not happen just in institutions.

Secondly, it is not just a historical issue. The recent news about the Presbyterian Church, recent convictions of priests and further allegations made in the past few months underline the fact that the issue is ongoing. The issue is not unique to Northern Ireland or, indeed, to the Republic of Ireland; it is a worldwide issue, and we all have responsibility for it. It is the responsibility of not just the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, the Executive Office and MLAs but of all the Churches and faith-based organisations.

I was not an MLA when the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Bill worked its way through the Chamber, but it was one of the first pieces of legislation that I worked on in another role with the Alliance Party. I understand the reasons why clerical abuse, mother-and-baby homes and those in the foster system were not included in the legislation at the time. I know that their inclusion would have made its scope too wide. I appreciated the concerns at the time. We were happy to support it in that form back then, because it absolutely needed to happen.