Official Report: Tuesday 19 May 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — was at risk. Let us do our jobs.

Mr Speaker: I call Declan Kearney.

Mr O'Toole: There is nonsense in this place. Set a Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kearney.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I beg to move amendment No 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms McLaughlin: — that would have removed the posthumous cut-off date —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms McLaughlin: — for redress payments.

Mr Speaker: Order, Ms McLaughlin.

Ms McLaughlin: OK. I know that it is not —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms McLaughlin: — in the group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With your indulgence, a Cheann Comhairle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No 14 would insert:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment Nos 12, 13, 14 and 16 —.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is very pertinent today.

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

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

I will now turn to the amendments in this group.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Chambers: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes; go ahead.

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

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

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

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

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

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

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

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

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

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

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

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

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

Was it the Chair who asked for an intervention?

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

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: Can we distinguish between us? There are two Members for North Belfast. [Laughter.]

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

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

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

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

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Will the Member give way?

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

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

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

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

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

I commend my amendments to the House.

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

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Yes, thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to interject if we need to take a break. That is absolutely fine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, junior Minister, for your cooperation.

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

Mr Speaker: Questions 7 and 11 have been withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: We now move on to topical questions.

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

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

Mr Speaker: Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also said:

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

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

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

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

Mrs Mason: Go raibh maith agat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Burrows is not in his place.

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call junior Minister Reilly to resume her contribution.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

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

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

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

Mr Dickson: Will the junior Minister give way?

Ms Reilly: I will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Brett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Reilly: I will give way to Mr Brett and then Mr Carroll.

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

Ms Reilly: I am happy to give way to Mr Carroll.

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

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

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

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

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I thank the junior Minister for giving way. I am conscious that she was about to close.

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Junior Minister Reilly, thank you for that response.

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

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

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

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

That is all I have to say at this stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, can we have some order, in all corners.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question on amendment No 20, I remind Members that amendment Nos 20 and 21 are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if amendment No 20 is passed, I will not call amendment No 21.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There are Ayes from all sides of the House and only one dissenting voice from Mr Carroll. I will therefore not call amendment No 21, as it is mutually exclusive with amendment No 20, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 25, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 26 to 34 and amendments Nos 44 to 46. I call junior Minister Bunting to move amendment No 25 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I beg to move amendment No 25:

Ms Bunting: As outlined by junior Minister Reilly previously, the Bill's Final Stage in June will be an opportunity to reflect on its wider importance. Today, our focus is on the amendments. Nevertheless, I, too, would like to take a moment to thank all those survivors who have participated in the process. I consider it a privilege to be involved in this important piece of legislation. Today is not simply another stage in the passage of a Bill; it is part of a long overdue reckoning with how this country failed some of its most vulnerable. The provisions before us speak to a deeply troubling chapter of our past and to the enduring impact on those who lived with secrecy, stigma and unanswered questions about who they were and where they came from. That uncertainty was, in itself, an injustice.

In bringing forward the redress elements of the Bill, we must be clear: no financial payment can ever fully make up for the loss of identity, the disruption of lives or the years that have been taken. However, financial redress is, nevertheless, an important element of recognition, not only as outlined in the Bill but in a future individually assessed payment. For many, this moment has taken a lifetime. For some, it has come too late. We must approach this work with honesty about past failures and with care for those who still live with their consequences. There is nothing routine about this moment; it is deeply personal, and it demands seriousness, humility and compassion.

Before I move on to the rest of my remarks, I wish to also thank the Committee for its constructive approach and for putting first the needs of victims and survivors. I also place on record my thanks to our officials for their work on this very important Bill. They were unrelenting in their efforts and worked diligently to get it right. Thank you to all of them too.

There are many positive elements to debate today, but I will be honest: many difficult and emotive elements of the Bill remain. We have had to make compromises in many places to deliver the legislation in the fairest, most consistent and timely way. Obviously, redress is about much more than a financial redress scheme.

Redress already includes access to support and therapeutic services from the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS). We also know that other significant redress elements, such as memorialisation, will need to be thoughtfully considered with victims and survivors. We need to reflect on how best to do that in the right way and at the right time. That said, today is about the redress scheme.

I will now turn to the amendments in group 2, which relate to eligibility. There is a total of 13 amendments for debate in group 2, five of which were tabled by the Department, two by the Committee and six by MLAs.

I will speak first to amendment Nos 25, 28 and 29. The Department has tabled amendments to clause 31(3) and (4) to clarify that eligibility for redress extends only to the children of women whose primary purpose for admission was to receive shelter and maintenance from an institution. In doing so, it is important to recognise the complex experiences associated with those institutions. Two of the mother-and-baby institutions listed for redress — Thorndale House and Malone Place — operated a private maternity service alongside their facility for unmarried women and girls. Those private maternity clinics were established for a different purpose, namely to generate income and provide medical services to anyone who could afford or wished to pay for them. The intention behind the amendments is therefore to draw a careful but necessary distinction between those who had no choice but to enter an institution for the purpose of shelter and maintenance and those — usually married private patients — who were admitted for maternity care in a medical setting. There are two different sets of circumstances, and only one falls within the scope and policy intent of the redress scheme.

We fully recognise that some victims and survivors may not consider the term "shelter" to reflect their experience. It is important to acknowledge that perspective, but I use the term because that wording has precedent. The Government of Ireland use similar drafting in their legislation, in part to reflect the wide range of institutions involved, including those in which large numbers of births took place, such as county home infirmaries. We must ensure that the redress scheme remains focused on the women and children — now adults — who suffered the shame and stigma associated with admittance to a mother-and-baby institution, rather than on those who entered a private maternity setting for the purpose of giving birth and who generally returned home with their children shortly afterwards.

The standardised payment was established to recognise the women and girls whose lives were affected by a system of institutions that imposed shame and stigma on them. Evidence in the Queen's University and Ulster University report shows that those admitted to institutions for unmarried women and girls were exposed to inappropriate physical labour during pregnancy, to judgemental and dismissive attitudes, to limited antenatal information and to an authoritarian and cold regime. Those are conditions to which those admitted solely for private maternity provision would not generally have been subject. It is therefore appropriate and right that redress remain focused on the women and their children — now adults — whom the scheme was designed to support and acknowledge. Amendment No 29 essentially closes a potential loophole that could have allowed a person who was born in a private maternity setting to claim redress. We ask the House to support the amendments.

Amendment No 30 would allow an applicant to receive multiple payments. The standardised payment has been designed to ensure that victims and survivors can access redress in a timely and supported way, while acknowledging the impact of the institutional system as a whole. It reflects recommendations made by the truth recovery design panel and developed in collaboration with victims and survivors, who were clear that they wanted a standardised payment and wished to see it delivered without delay, rather than wait for the conclusion of a public inquiry. We listened carefully to those views, and the Executive are bringing forward a fair and balanced redress package of which the standardised payment is one important element.

A standardised scheme must be just that, and the Bill provides for a single payment linked to admission to one or more of the relevant institutions. Importantly, that is not intended to suggest that each individual admission in itself constituted harm; rather, it recognises that all those admitted or whose mother was admitted were affected by the wider system that operated at the time. It acknowledges that undeserved shame and stigma were imposed on those women and girls at a time when they most needed care and understanding.

We know that experiences will have varied significantly. Some individuals may have spent many years in a single institution, while others may have had multiple admissions, whether to the same institution or different institutions. There will be some victims and survivors who were born to a woman following her admission to an institution and then, later on, admitted as a birth mother themselves. It is a core principle of the scheme that no applicant's experience should be given greater weight than the experience of another and that the same payment is made to all eligible victims and survivors regardless of the number or duration of admissions. It would be neither proportionate nor in keeping with the intent of the scheme for the payment to increase simply on the basis of the number of admissions.

The Bill also reflects an inclusive and practical approach to eligibility, recognising the varied ways in which individuals may have been connected to the institutions. Eligibility is framed to include those who were born following their mother's admission to an institution as well as those who were themselves admitted either as a child or an adult. That ensures that individuals are not excluded simply because they were born in a hospital setting and never physically entered a mother-and-baby institution or were admitted as a baby without their mother ever having been in such an institution. However, the drafting also means that there are circumstances where an individual could be eligible under subsections (2) and (4) when they were a baby — for example, being born following their mother's admission to an institution and then being admitted to that institution themselves shortly afterwards.

The proposed amendment would risk creating a position where that same individual would become eligible for more than one payment even though the underlying experience is essentially the same. That would move the scheme away from providing a single standardised acknowledgement of the impact of the system as a whole.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for giving way. As we know, the proposal came from Gerry Carroll, and I am very sympathetic to it, not least for the women who were born and then, years later, readmitted to give birth. My understanding is that there is only a handful of them. I fully take your point that, if people move between institutions, they should not be eligible for £10,000 for every move at that time of their life, but will you not agree that they are two distinct situations: being born and then, 15 or 20 years later, being readmitted? Is it not within the gift of the departmental officials and drafters to ensure that the delegated legislation flowing from this could make that distinction?

Ms Bunting: I take on board the Committee Chair's point, but I reiterate that the purpose of this is a standardised payment. I accept that there were difficult circumstances for a number of people where there may have been multiple admissions to separate institutions and so on. The key, as I will come to, is that all those experiences are perhaps better addressed and more thoughtfully, considerately, properly and fully addressed in the individually assessed payment, where people's lived experience will be fully taken into account. That is entirely different from the purpose of standardisation. I will move on, if that is OK.

As I indicated, the proposed amendment would risk creating a position where the same individual would become eligible for more than one payment even though the underlying experience is the same, but that would move the scheme away from providing a single standardised acknowledgement of the system as a whole. It is important that that is on the record. It could also lead to outcomes that are difficult to justify, particularly when that person's experience is compared with that of others whose experience, such as decades in a Magdalene laundry, would still attract only one payment.

We appreciate that it is a sensitive matter. However, one of the core principles of the scheme, as set out in the 'Truth, Acknowledgement and Accountability' report, is that there should be a single standardised payment. Victims and survivors themselves asked for that.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the junior Minister take an intervention?

Ms Bunting: I will, certainly.

Ms McLaughlin: Have you done any assessment of the number of people who would present themselves to get those multiple payments? It is our understanding that very few people would be eligible.

Ms Bunting: I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, I understand, indeed, that the numbers would not be enormous. The issue pertains more to the general principle of standardisation and not creating a system where there are tiers or where we compare and contrast people's experience. That is why I consider that people's lived experience will be much more properly addressed in the course of an individually assessed payment.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: I will.

Mr Gaston: You talk about lived experience and the standardisation process that we will enter into, yet the legislation contains a posthumous date. That discriminates against people who were admitted to one of those settings but, because of the date, will not qualify. You cannot have it both ways.

Ms Bunting: Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I will address the Member's point in my winding-up speech. He makes an important point. It is right that the House discusses the point that he makes. I will come to it in my winding-up speech. I will stick with the points that we are getting through here.

As I said, it is something for which the victims and survivors asked. It is essential that we do not introduce distinctions that would differentiate and potentially create divisions and tiers between those in the scheme. As a result, we cannot support the amendment. It is important for members to note and understand that the standardised payment is not the only —.

Mr Dickson: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: I will give way.

Mr Dickson: I struggle to understand what the Minister is saying. If someone was born into an institution and then left it, probably having no knowledge of having been in that institution — certainly not at the time of their birth — and, a number of years later, ended up in the same institution or a different one, that is a second standard situation; it is not an unstandardised situation. I fail to understand why the legislation cannot take account of two incidents in a small number of people's lives.

Ms Bunting: Again, I understand the point that the Member makes. However, the issue is not about the standardisation of experience but about the standardisation of payment, because it is an acknowledgement-of-admission payment. For example, somebody may have been in an institution as a baby and have no recollection of that because they were a mere infant. Somebody else may have spent decades in the Magdalene laundries. It is important that we do not afford one experience greater acknowledgement than another. All the issues can be more properly addressed in the course of the individually assessed payment, where victims and survivors will have a chance to make statements and submit evidence about their lived experience and the treatment that they received. That is an important part of the process. Therefore, it is on that basis; it is not about the standardisation of experience but, rather, about the standardisation of the payment, because where experiences differ is where the individually assessed payment will kick in.

It is important for Members to note and understand — I will reiterate the point — that the standardised payment is not the only form of redress. A separate, individually assessed payment scheme will follow the public inquiry. That will provide the opportunity for individual experiences, including multiple or prolonged admissions, to be considered fully and recognised in a more tailored way.

I will address amendment Nos 31, 32 and 33 together, after I have paused for a glass of water.

As I have said previously, the standardised payment has been developed from recommendations made by the truth recovery design panel. It aims to provide redress quickly and directly to victims and survivors, without requiring them to recount traumatic experiences. It is an acknowledgement payment based solely on admission to a listed institution and does not require a statement of experience or proof of abuse. That is a key principle of the scheme to minimise retraumatisation, while ensuring timely access to redress. The scheme is also taking the unusual, but appropriate, step of proceeding ahead of a full public inquiry. That reflects the reality that many victims and survivors are now part of an older age group. There is a clear need to deliver financial redress as quickly as possible, rather than waiting for a longer evidential process to conclude. We have looked carefully at precedent and best practice, both here and in other jurisdictions. The standardised payment is a fundamentally different form of acknowledgement, based on admission alone. It does not require the signing of a waiver, nor does it take into account any previous payments.

The Executive agreed the standardised payment scheme as a universal acknowledgement available to all eligible applicants, regardless of the duration or severity of their experience. As such, it necessarily spans a wide range of circumstances, from those who spent years in institutions to those who were admitted for much shorter periods. Again, we must also be clear that the payment is not intended to reflect the full extent of harm. That is the role of the individually assessed payment that will follow the public inquiry and take account of a person's lived experience, including evidence of abuse. We understand why some argue that the payment should be higher. We recognise the strength of feeling behind those calls. However, it is important to be clear about the implications: for every £1,000 increase, the cost of the scheme rises by around £4.5 million.

Amendment No 34 covers the Assembly procedure for extending the redress scheme from three years to a maximum of five years. That amendment arises from consideration during Committee Stage, when members highlighted the importance of stronger Assembly oversight. Extending the scheme will inevitably have implications for the overall costs and operation, so moving from negative to draft affirmative resolution will ensure that any such extension is subject to a higher level of scrutiny and, indeed, explicit Assembly approval. Therefore, we ask Members to support that amendment.

Amendment No 44 is a technical amendment tabled by the Department to change "Hopedene House" to its more commonly used name of "Hopedene Hostel". Again, we ask Members to support that amendment.

Amendment No 45 would see the addition of three children's homes to the list at schedule 2. The standardised payment has been deliberately designed to recognise a particular historical injustice: a system of gender-specific institutions that imposed undeserved shame and stigma on women and girls, and, by extension, their children, now adults. It is also clear that the state played a role in that system, including in the placement of women and girls and through regulatory inspection and welfare responsibilities. The scheme is therefore grounded in addressing that particular form of discrimination and the state's role in it. That is why eligibility for the children, now adults, in the scheme is tied to the mother's admittance to a relevant institution. Any person who was born following their mother's admittance to a mother-and-baby institution is included for redress, including those who were subsequently sent to children's homes. Extending the scheme to include all those who were admitted to individual children's homes, regardless of age or circumstances, would represent a significant shift in policy intent. Those homes were part of the wider care system and admitted children for a range of reasons and from varied backgrounds. The abuse of children in institutional care has already been the focus of the historical institutional abuse inquiry, and those institutions fell within the remit of that redress scheme. It is important to maintain clarity between the schemes to ensure that each addresses the specific harms and contexts for which it was designed. While institutions can be added via regulations to the list at schedule 2, any such addition must be evidence-based and in line with the scope and policy intent of the scheme.

The forthcoming inquiry will have the flexibility to examine children's homes where they form part of the pathways and practices associated with mother-and-baby institutions. The independent panel has also already considered a number of children's homes in its work. The findings from both processes will inform the ongoing consideration of any future redress measures, ensuring that decisions are informed by a full and robust evidence base.

Adding three children's homes to the list in schedule 2 today would fundamentally change the scheme from one that is focused on the experience of women and girls and their children, who are now adults, to one that covers the broader care system. The amendment, therefore, risks losing that clear focus and could weaken the scheme's ability to properly recognise and support those for whom it was specifically established. On that basis, we will not support amendment No 45 and urge the House to do likewise.

Regarding amendment No 46, the approach taken in the Bill reflects established practice in redress schemes where eligibility for posthumous payments is typically targeted at a spouse and children. That is consistent with redress schemes, such as the historical institutional abuse redress scheme and Redress Scotland. In addition to that, during the public consultation, the most common response to the question of who should be considered to be next of kin for the purposes of posthumous payments was spouse and children. That approach also aligns with the closest relatives recognised under the law of intestacy. The scheme has been designed to reflect the complex and often sensitive family circumstances that arise in that context. In particular, many individuals who were adopted have told us that recognition as a child of their deceased parent is a key part of redress. For that reason, adopted children are included and treated on an equal footing with all other children, ensuring that they are recognised in the same way as any other child of the family, regardless of the legal or family structures that have shaped their lives.

Extending eligibility to include mothers, however, would raise significant issues of consistency and fairness. To treat relationships equally, in a similar manner to the children, it would be necessary to consider whether all parents should be eligible, including birth mothers, birth fathers and adoptive parents. The amendment as drafted uses the term "mother", which, in a legal sense, would ordinarily refer to the adoptive mother rather than the birth mother, potentially leading to confusion and inconsistency in application.

The amendment also creates further, perhaps unintended, layers of entitlement. For example, it would extend beyond the relatives of the children, who are now adults, and result in the mothers of deceased birth mothers being eligible. We have heard from some survivors — this is important — that taking such a broad approach would be deeply uncomfortable, particularly where relationships were absent or harmful or where a parent may have been directly involved in their experiences. It is also true that some birth fathers will have been perpetrators of crimes, while others may not have known about the birth or not wanted their child to be put up for adoption. Those are complex and potentially traumatising issues that would have to be addressed if posthumous eligibility were to be extended to mothers and not fathers in order to ensure compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. Any difference in treatment on the basis of gender would have to be clearly justified.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: Yes, I will.

Mr Carroll: We were told by the Bill Office when we were drafting the amendments that we had to use the term "mother", rather than "birth mother", because it was in line with legislation as written already. I just want to provide that clarity to the Minister and the House.

Ms Bunting: I appreciate the Member's comment on the advice that he received. As I have outlined, the difficulty is the legal understanding and the legal implications of "mother" as referring to an adoptive mother. I also refer the Member to the fact that I outlined that, while the intention may be right and may be well-meaning, it is about the unintended consequences that follow. My remarks have outlined —.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: Yes, in just one second, if I may, Mr Carroll. The issue is what those unintended consequences could look like and what they could open victims and survivors up to. They have already demonstrated that, for many of them, it is a very sensitive issue. It could involve perpetrators being in receipt of payment and redress. That is a quagmire that needs to be carefully considered before the amendment is moved.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the junior Minister's giving way. I am not sure that that is the case, but, given the fact that the amendment is in line with how the Bill is written, is it not also the case that the legislation itself could very much have unintended consequences?

Ms Bunting: No, I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I reject that point from the Member. My argument has been very clear, as has the rationale for our rejection of the amendment and our urging the House to consider the nature of the issues involved, the sensitivities and the implications. I urge the House to carefully consider what it intends to do in regard to that specific amendment, bearing in mind the consequences; the family dynamics, which have not always been a positive experience for many victims and survivors; and, indeed, situations where birth parents have potentially caused harm. That is not to mention the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights. I urge the House to be very careful about its decision on that amendment.

I will make one other point on that amendment. The loss of a child at any age is an unimaginable pain, and it is not one that the standardised scheme could satisfactorily address in any way. It would be more appropriate for such circumstances to be considered through the individually assessed payment scheme to allow for a more flexible and person-centred approach. Again, I ask the House to oppose that amendment, which would create complex eligibility and, potentially, equality issues for the scheme.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

Ms Bradshaw: On behalf of the Committee, I will not move amendment Nos 26 and 27, but I would like to make some further comments, if that is OK.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. The amendments in group 2 specifically relate to: "Truth Recovery Redress Service: Entitlement to payment and amount to be paid". As I said, amendment Nos 26 and 27 will not be moved.

With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to refer to an amendment that the Committee proposed that related to the removal of the posthumous eligibility date of 29 September 2011. Notwithstanding the debate about which amendments were or were not selected and the fact that many of us would have liked to have seen that matter debated in the House, the Committee amendment would have broadened eligibility to a range of victims and survivors. However, the amendment was not selected, and, while I absolutely recognise and respect that the selection of amendments is a matter for the judgement of the Speaker, it would have been more appropriate if we had been able to debate it in detail. I have no doubt that the Committee will return to the issue tomorrow, because it was the number-one issue that came before us, whether through written evidence, oral statements or conversations at the round-table meetings. I fully acknowledge the hurt that was caused by the inclusion of that posthumous eligibility date in the first place and that has been caused again by the fact that we have not been given the opportunity to discuss its removal.

I will now focus on the amendments in group 2. Amendment No 30 relates to the insertion of the words "more than", rather than just "for", when it comes to cases where an individual should be eligible for more than one payment. I very much acknowledge what the junior Minister said about the potential for people having moved from one institution to another.

The Executive Office and the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), however, have the capability to look at how secondary legislation could be drafted to ensure that clause 31 could be changed to reflect the situation in which someone who was born in an institution, having later become pregnant, found herself, as result of an unfortunate episode, in an institution again. We will therefore support that amendment.

I very much accept some of what the junior Minister said about creating a hierarchy, but that is not our intention. We recognise the pain and suffering and the harm, stigma and abuse that everybody involved in that sorry part of our history endured, but there are particular circumstances involved. We know that a very small number of people were affected. If the amendment is to acknowledge admission half a generation or a generation apart, those persons should be eligible.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Does she agree that it is less about creating a hierarchy and more about recognising that, if abuse happened on more than one occasion, people should be allowed some form of redress and equality in recognition of that?

Ms Bradshaw: I certainly appreciate that. I put on record another element of the evidence that we received, which is that many people, especially the birth mothers, have concerns that, although they have been campaigning for 10, 12 or 14 years, we are only now getting to the stage at which we are debating the legislation for the inquiry. They have serious concerns about how long it will take to set up the inquiry and for it to conduct its business and compile a report, with an individually assessed payment process coming at the far end. There are people in the Gallery today whom the Committee has heard from who are in their mid-to-late 70s. They have said they hope to be but fear that they will not still be on this earth by the time that the individually assessed redress payment scheme is in place. We have to acknowledge the age profile of a lot of victims and survivors, who are depending on the legislation to reflect their needs.

Associated with that, Sinéad McLaughlin's amendment is an attempt to factor an inflationary increase into the standardised payment of £10,000. We will support that amendment. I fully agree with it. Not to go back a step, but I thought that, were we to find an amendment that would unify us all, it would have been one that removed the posthumous date, but we are not allowed to debate or vote on such an amendment today, so we will support Sinéad's amendment.

We welcome the First Minister and the deputy First Minister's amendment No 34 to clause 32, which will change the process from one that is subject to negative resolution to one that is subject to approval by a resolution of the Assembly. As elected representatives, we should be involved in scrutinising all the delegated legislation and regulations that flow from the Bill.

The junior Minister set out clearly why Gerry Carroll's amendment No 45 to schedule 2 would be problematic, as it would have unintended consequences and move the Bill well beyond its scope of supporting the women and their children who endured the harsh conditions of mother-and-baby institutions. I am upset that there were children who are now adults who were in those homes and suffered harm and abuse, but I feel that the amendment would take the Bill way beyond its scope and could unintentionally open it up to wider applications.

Amendment No 46 to schedule 3 would insert the words "the mother of the deceased". Again, I am very sympathetic to that amendment. I am, by no means, an expert on the law of intestacy or on the European Convention on Human Rights, and I would certainly take counsel from the junior Minister in her warning about the particular circumstances here and unintended consequences. While I am again sympathetic to the fact that birth mothers are not eligible for a posthumous payment for their deceased child, we will oppose the amendment but only on the grounds of its potential unintended consequences.

That is everything at this stage.

Ms McLaughlin: This part of the Bill and amendment Nos 25 to 34 and Nos 44 to 46 deal with redress, and all of us recognise the weight that redress carries. For many victims and survivors, acknowledgement has been absent for most of their life. Many were ignored and dismissed and made to feel that what happened to them was somehow theirs to carry alone. Nothing in the legislation can undo that hurt, and no financial payment can restore the lost years, repair broken relationships or erase the trauma that people lived through in those institutions. However, redress and financial payments still matter. They matter because it is an acknowledgement by society — by all of us — and by the state that a profound wrong was done. That matters because survivors deserve more than sympathy; they deserve recognition, backed up by action.

I will focus my remarks on amendment No 31, which stands in my name. It relates to the standardised recognition payment. It is not, as the junior Minister said, about harm; it is about universal acknowledgement, which, of course, is different from redress, and about lived experience. It is not about individual assessments. As the Chair of the Committee said, that will come in time. However, it could take a good bit of time for that to happen.

In 2019, when the initial standard payment —

Ms Bunting: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: I will just finish this point. I will then let you in, junior Minister.

In 2019, when the initial standard payment was made under the Historical Institutional Abuse Act, that payment was £10,000. I am not saying that this is like for like, but that was the point of entry in 2019. My amendment proposes to increase the payment available under the scheme from £10,000 to £12,000 in recognition of the time that has elapsed since that previous recognition payment.

I do not think that anybody believes that there is a figure that could ever truly reflect the suffering endured by victims and survivors. That is not what the amendment seeks to do; it would ensure that the redress scheme reflects more meaningfully the scale of the failures that took place. The proposed uplift would cost an additional £9 million overall, but it is important that that figure is understood properly. It would not be paid in one financial year; it could be spread over a number of years. When considered against the decades of institutional harm, silence and neglect that survivors have experienced, the increase, which is, in many ways, modest on an individual basis, is justified.

We are talking about people who were failed not only by individual institutions but by the wider systems of power and authority around them. They had decisions made for them. Their voices were ignored. They were treated as problems to be hidden away, rather than as human beings deserving of dignity and compassion. In that context, the amendment represents a reasonable and proportionate improvement to the scheme. It is also important that today's debate is not viewed solely through the lens of public funding, because, alongside state responsibility, there is the question of institutional responsibility.

I give way.

Ms Bunting: I advise the Member that we do not intend to oppose her amendment on the increase.

Ms McLaughlin: That is welcome news. Thank you very much. That is acknowledgement that the people affected deserve more. They will now get more, albeit a small amount more.

Given that many of the organisations connected to the institutions operated over decades and held immense influence in society, survivors will rightly expect those institutions to play a role in contributing towards redress. This is not about retribution; it is about accountability and ensuring that the acknowledgement is not limited to words.

A number of the amendments in the group would tighten up definitions around eligibility and clarify the circumstances in which people qualify for payment. Those are necessary changes. Legislation such as this must be clear enough to operate fairly but sensitive enough to recognise the complexity of survivors' experiences. That is an important distinction for the operation of the scheme.

We, too, will support amendment No 30. We believe that it is important that the legislation is as inclusive as possible for survivors and that unnecessary barriers are not placed in the way of eligibility or redress. Given the scale of the suffering involved and the number of people who have already passed away without ever receiving acknowledgement, our view is that, where there is an opportunity to strengthen access to the scheme, the Assembly should carefully consider doing so.

I am glad to hear that others will support my amendment. That being the case, amendment No 32 will probably go by the wayside. However, I appreciate the rationale behind Gerry's amendment. My view is that amendment No 31 strikes the right balance between strengthening the recognition for survivors and ensuring that the scheme remains workable and deliverable for all.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I am not on the Committee, as she knows, but I believe that the Committee received some evidence or correspondence from groups or individuals to say that they prefer the higher figure of £15,000 or £20,000. Twelve thousand pounds is better than £10,000, but we should aim for those higher figures. Is that true? Did the Member receive those briefings?

Ms McLaughlin: While it was out to consultation, a lot of figures were brought in and a lot of areas were discussed. The Committee looked at all of them. Even the £12,000 is not based on the inflationary rate; it would probably be more like £13,500. Suggestions went from £10,000 to anything upwards of that. We recognise that this is not the entirety of the scheme; this is a standardised acknowledgement and an initial universal payment. Hopefully, proper redress for lived experience will not take that long and people will be rightly and justly recompensed throughout the scheme.

Mr Brett: I thank the Member for giving way. On the point that she was making, does she agree that most of the consultation was not about the amount of money for victims but about recognition, justice and truth and that, for many of the people who came to our Committee, money was a secondary issue?

Ms McLaughlin: I agree with the Member, but a lot of people came back to say that they felt that £10,000 as a standardised payment was too low.

I accept the Executive Office's rationale regarding the children's homes. It could shift the focus, and we cannot allow that to happen with the Bill. That is not to not recognise the experience of those connected to the institutions; we absolutely recognise them. Our understanding is that the regulations contained in the Bill already afford the flexibility for additional organisations to be added. We in the Committee felt very strongly that, if evidence becomes apparent throughout the process of the inquiry, there should be an ability to add institutions. We believe that that is the case with the Bill. However, I am keen to hear from the Member who tabled amendment on why he believes that it should be made. We look forward to hearing that. Throughout the entire discussion, our priority has been to ensure that survivors receive recognition and acknowledgement through the appropriate mechanisms available to them.

Finally, I want to touch briefly on amendment No 46, which includes the mother of a deceased person as an eligible relative. I thank the junior Minister for her clarity on that amendment.

I ask for further clarification from the junior Minister about whether there is anything currently in the regulations or draft regulations that already prevents the mother from being eligible in those circumstances. I want to understand whether there is a blockage there. I too would like to hear from Gerry Carroll about any specific examples that he has on that issue before I decide whether this is something that we can support.

If there is a gap, clearly it deserves careful consideration. At the same time, I do not seek for the amendment to be accepted, and then find out later that it has caused harm, albeit unintended. Can the Committee, and maybe the Executive Office, look at that at Further Consideration Stage just so that we are really sure that it is not already provided for or that we need to think about it more carefully to make sure that no harm is caused?

One of the most painful aspects of this history is how long people have had to wait simply to be believed. Many survivors have spent years carrying shame that should never have belonged to them, and some passed away before seeing any acknowledgement at all. As the Chair said, time is moving on, and some people do not have a lot of time for this. What this legislation offers cannot change that past, but it can demonstrate that society is finally prepared to confront it with honesty. Part of confronting it honestly means ensuring that the redress scheme is credible, compassionate and worthy of the people it is intended to support. That is why we support these amendments and why I hope that the House continues to strengthen the Bill as it moves forward.

Ms Bunting: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: Yes.

Ms Bunting: Just before the Member sits down, may I ask for clarity on a point that she asked for clarity from me on, just so that I can address it in the course of my winding-up speech? It might be beneficial to the House. The Member raised the issue of looking for clarity around "blockage". Will she reiterate that point so that we are clear about what she is looking for and what she means by "blockage", so that I can address it in my winding-up speech?

Ms McLaughlin: Which amendment? No 46?

Ms Bunting: I think so. You made reference to a blockage and asked for clarity around a blockage. I think that it was amendment No 46.

Ms McLaughlin: Yes, it is. First of all, I thank you for your clarity in and around that amendment. I wanted to know whether there was anything in the current or draft regulations that already prevents a mother from being eligible in these circumstances. I just wanted a wee bit more clarity in and around that. Is that OK?

Ms Bunting: Thank you.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Like all Members, I thank everybody, particularly survivors, victims and their families, their support groups, everybody who was with them from the start and the people who took the first steps to get us to where we are today — also the Department, departmental officials and our own Committee people. There has been a really good collegiate approach to this.

Before I talk about the second group of amendments, which relates to the truth recovery redress service, entitlement to payment and amount to be paid, I want to bring us back to the first page of the Bill. It talks about:

Like all Members, I am acutely aware of the rules. I am not talking about which amendment was or was not accepted. I want to talk about why this has really upset a lot of us. There are people in the Public Gallery and people watching this. People are watching this in various rooms throughout the Assembly. They feel that the state, because of its construction from partition onwards, put women and girls into institutions, othered them and made them less than, and they now feel, after the events of the weekend, that this is mark 2: 2026, rather than 1922. It is on that context that we need to focus.

It is for those people, including all those who have gone. We do not know where some of them rest, and some do not know where their babies are. All we know is that they were put in those institutions because the context of the day was patriarchal and misogynistic. Women and girls were othered. As I said this morning, girls as young as 14 were pregnant in an institution and not one person asked how they became pregnant, even though they suspected that it was through rape or incest. That is the context that we are talking about.

Frankly, I understand that people need to talk about human rights and legislation and different aspects of the law. However, just for the purpose of this, remember the people who are not here. We need to make sure, in some way or other, that we do our best through the legislation, and we said that this morning.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does she agree that one of the saddest aspects of all this is that many of the women did not live to see today? This is our opportunity to give them acknowledgement and allow their families to know that they have been given it. Even for those who do not have family, that acknowledgement is made for those women and girls. They deserve to be remembered and not forgotten.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I agree 100%, Linda. That is something that we all agree on. We met many people. The Bill was published and was based on the report of the truth recovery process. The most enlightening and insightful thing for me, and, I am sure, for many of us on the Committee, was that, after our call for evidence, all those people very bravely stepped into one of the intimidating Committee rooms and told us their stories. Some of us had heard those stories before, but others had never heard them, and we need to make sure that those stories and people are reflected in the legislation as best we can manage it.

I also understand that, on the redress service and entitlement for payment, as Sinéad, Paula and everyone said, this is just a standardised payment to recognise that someone went through one of those institutions. The other payments that will come later will certainly reflect the awful trauma that they experienced.

We support your amendment, Sinéad. We certainly support it now, given that the posthumous date has been removed. We cannot support your amendment, Gerry, with the £20,000 figure, because there were lots of figures that were thrown out, some as high as £50,000. Money was not an issue for many people: the issue was the date of 1922. We want to make sure that the money goes to the people and no excuses are made. There is money there, and there is no excuse for people not getting their standardised payment. I understand that you have been speaking to victims and survivors and listening to what they have told you. You have a right to table your amendment. I spoke to many in the Public Gallery about this, this morning, so I do not want anybody hearing it from Sinn Féin for the first time. I am just giving them their place.

I would like clarification from you, Gerry, on amendment No 30 to clause 31. I am not really sure what you mean when you talk about enabling a person born in an institution and admitted to more than one such institution to make multiple claims. I have just written that down very roughly. Like Sinéad, I just want to find out what it means, because none of us wants to —. I will say this: had we spoken to each other before the amendment earlier, we could have had 28 days now instead of 21. Therefore, I ask people to be flexible. We will have other opportunities to amend the Bill. If that flexibility means taking the amendment back to look at it so that we fully understand it before returning to it, there will be other opportunities to bring it forward. The advice that we have been given rings alarm bells. We do not want to do anything that will have unintended consequences, including leaving the scheme open to being taken advantage of by others who might not be entitled to do so. I will not go into further detail.

Gerry, we cannot support the amendment that relates to three additional homes and their residents. Paula gave a good rationale for that. I understand that that will cause disappointment, but the amendment would open the scheme up and have unintended consequences that would go beyond the scope of the Bill. However, as we have said, if we can talk about the intent and you can address what that is, we can certainly look at it.

I have been here since 2007, and, I have to say, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will ever introduce. Despite some of the concerns that have been raised, what is important about what has happened in redress and entitlement is the story behind it, which was briefly touched on this morning. Young women and girls — Protestant, Catholic, Dissenter — often went to institutions of a different religion in order to have privacy. The institutions, whether or not they were religious, were part of the state. They had the state's permission to do what they wanted to those children and those women, because that is what they were. It was often a case of, "If you don't see it, you don't hear it, and you can't address it". This legislation is about our saying to people, "We see you, we hear you, and we will address these concerns to make sure that there is a proper settlement and entitlement".

I will talk about other issues that relate to the amendments in group 3, but I will dip into group 1 to make a point about transparency and accountability. I majored on clause 17 and, in particular, the use of public immunity certificates, because the institutions covered everything up. Their behaviour was collusive, they were coercive, and they did not care about the impact on the women and their children. As we know from people who have contacted us, it is not only about people not knowing where their parents or grandparents are. Some people had the wrong birth certificates, and some birth certificates were falsified. Other people were brought across the border very conveniently; in fact, you could get children across the border quicker than you could get a pound of butter. That is to quote one of the victims and survivors — she knows who she is. Nobody turned a blind eye; everyone knew that it was going on.

Should the standardised payment be £10,000 or £12,000, it is just about saying that that is what it is, but, further down the line, when we go through the inquiry, we need to ensure that the institutions not only pay their fair due but hand over their records. The state needs to hand over its records, too. The Department of Health cannot hide behind the fact that it has a shortage of social workers. Yet again, TEO is stepping in to ensure that those people's records are accessed.

There are already many impediments, and we want to make sure that we get the legislation right. Why I sought clarification from you, Gerry, was to make the point that I agree with the principle of what you are doing, but it is ultimately about the unintended consequences of your amendments. I therefore appeal to you to withdraw at least one or two of them, and we can then come back to the matter.

Members have referred to entitlement to the payment to be made by the institutions and the state. That is addressed in the group 2 amendments. The Committee was insulted to receive correspondence from one of the religious institutions stating that it cost money for it to keep women and girls. That is what we were dealing with. We felt insulted on behalf of those women and girls. For me, that displayed the arrogance of such institutions and the context that allowed that patriarchal, misogynistic, abusive and coercive behaviour to flourish for decades. We want to make sure that, through the Truth Recovery Redress Service, there are no free passes for religious institutions or for the state.

I genuinely look forward to hearing what Gerry has to say. I hope that we can get through the rest of the amendments without having too many Divisions. I respect people's right to table amendments, however. It is a pity that some of the amendments that the Committee tabled were not selected for debate and were therefore not heard.

Mrs Cameron: This is an incredibly important day, as we consider the proposed amendments to the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. I also came to the legislation at a later stage in the process, when the Committee was scrutinising the Bill. I declare an interest, in that I was a junior Minister along with junior Minister Reilly when the legislation was introduced. I thank both junior Ministers for their ongoing work on the Bill, because it is incredibly important. This is highly sensitive legislation, and I think that it is fair to say that all parties are united in welcoming the Bill's progress.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the group 2 amendments. They relate to one of the most sensitive areas of the Bill, which deals with entitlement to redress and the amount to be paid. At the outset, I acknowledge the victims and survivors, who have waited too long for truth, recognition and redress. No payment can ever undo the harm that was caused, and no scheme can restore what was taken from people. The Bill can, however, provide formal recognition, a route to redress and a process that is clear, accessible and trauma-informed.

Throughout its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee heard extensive evidence, including on concerns about eligibility, the adequacy of the standardised payment and the importance of ensuring that the process does not become overly complex or retraumatising. I thank the Committee Chair for all her work and for outlining the Committee's work in such detail today. I will not repeat what she said or seek to draw out the debate for any longer than is necessary, but it is important to recognise, as has been made clear, that the legislation deals with facilitating the much-needed and long-awaited public inquiry and making provision for an admission-based redress payment. It is not a harm-based payment at this stage. That will come later, once the inquiry has done its work on individually assessed payments.

Amendment No 25 will remove subsection (3) of clause 31. On its own, the amendment appears to be technical, but it needs to be read alongside the later amendments, which restructure that clause and more clearly set out the relevant conditions. The purpose of the amendment is to make the entitlement provisions clearer and avoid duplication in the clause. Amendment Nos 28 and 29 are also to clause 31, which concerns the redress payment entitlement. Amendment No 28 will link entitlement to the new conditions that are set out in amendment No 29. Amendment No 29 will provide further detail. It makes it clear that the person must have been:

and that the primary purpose of the mother's admission was:

It also clarifies that that does not include shelter or maintenance that was only:

That distinction is important. It helps us to ensure that the standardised redress scheme is focused on the circumstances that it was designed to address, and it helps to avoid uncertainty in the consideration of applications. There will have been women who entered some of those institutions for what would we all recognise as healthcare that you would expect to receive in any hospital. The legislation was not designed to cater for them, and it is good that the amendment provides that clear distinction.

Amendment No 30 refers to more than one payment where someone was admitted to more than one institution or qualifies in more than one way. The amendment raises an issue that many people understand emotionally, particularly where an individual has experience of more than one institution. However, the Bill, as drafted, creates a standardised redress payment, and that structure is intended to provide recognition without requiring every applicant to go through a detailed, individual assessment of harm at this stage. Any movement away from that standardised structure would have wider implications for consistency, administration and delivery. Those matters have to be considered very carefully, particularly when victims and survivors have already waited so long.

On amendment No 31 in the name of Sinéad McLaughlin, I very much welcome that the standardised payment will be set in legislation. We have heard much evidence on that. The DUP will not be opposing the £12,000 payment. I thank the Member for her amendment and for outlining the reasons behind it. I put on record the fact that no amount of money can ever properly reflect the harm suffered, nor should it ever attempt to do so. Indeed, it is important to remember that the payment is standardised, and it is not to address the harm. It is, however, a way to recognise the shame and stigma that were so wrongly imposed on those who were placed in those institutions. The purpose of that element is to create a standardised payment that can be delivered in a clear and accessible way and, I trust, at speed. As has been mentioned, there is a future harm-based individual payment scheme to consider. That scheme will be the appropriate place for more detailed individual assessment, and I trust that the preparatory work for it will be progressed with urgency.

Amendment No 33 deals with payments to eligible relatives. That is a deeply sensitive issue, particularly where a victim or survivor has died before receiving truth, recognition or redress. The position of families deserves sensitivity. At the same time, any change to the level of payment would have wider implications for the structure of the scheme and how it will operate. The central aim must remain that the process is fair, clear and capable of being delivered.

Amendment No 34 strengthens Assembly oversight of any extension to the application period. As drafted, the Bill provides for a three-year application window, with the possibility of extending that to up to five years. Amendment No 34 requires such an extension to be approved by the Assembly. That provides for proper scrutiny, and I welcome it. It matters because the scheme must reach elderly victims and survivors, those living outside Northern Ireland and those who may only become aware of their eligibility later in life. The Assembly should have a clear role in considering whether the time frame remains appropriate. We therefore welcome the amendment.

Amendment No 44, which has been tabled by the Department, provides a technical correction. The amendment to schedule 2 replaces "House" with "Hostel". It may appear minor, but accuracy matters in legislation of this nature. The names and descriptions of institutions must be correct not only for legal certainty but out of respect for those with lived experience that is connected to them.

Amendment No 45 relates to three children's homes and raises the issue of whether further institutions should be added to schedule 2. I welcome the clarity from junior Minister Bunting on the amendment and why it is not appropriate. Where evidence supports the inclusion of further institutions, there must be a clear, transparent and evidence-led route for that to happen. The Bill already contains a mechanism for relevant institutions and relevant years to be set out and amended. The key point is that decisions on inclusion must be based on evidence, handled transparently and communicated clearly to victims and survivors. I thank the Chair of the Committee for her contribution on the topic.

Amendment No 46 raises the question of who should be treated as an eligible relative. That is another sensitive issue. Families were affected in different ways, and the loss experienced by relatives should not be ignored.

However, any expansion of eligibility has to be considered carefully in respect of fairness, consistency and the overall operation of the scheme. I welcome the clarity that the junior Minister gave on that particular matter.

This group of amendments goes to the heart of entitlement and payment. I fully understand why Members wish to test whether the scheme should go further. Those issues are not easy. However, the key responsibility of the House is to ensure that the redress scheme is clear, fair, trauma-informed, evidence-led and capable of being delivered without further unnecessary delay. The standardised payment scheme is not the end of that process. The future harm-based individual payment scheme will also be vital. Preparatory work on that must be progressed at pace, because, as I have said before, the victims and survivors have waited long enough. They need clarity, recognition and a process that works for them. The Bill cannot undo the past, but it can make an important step towards truth, accountability and redress.

I put on record my thanks to the departmental officials and both junior Ministers for the vast amount of work that has been done. I am grateful for the good engagement throughout with the people who matter most — the victims and survivors — many of whom are here today to see the legislation reach another milestone in its progress through the House. The departmental officials also worked incredibly well with the Committee in order come to agreement on many of the amendments that were suggested during our scrutiny of the Bill; that was very welcome. Lastly, I thank the Committee Clerk and team who facilitated the many witnesses throughout the process and managed the process to this stage.

Mr Gaston: The amendments in this group, particularly those that would amend clause 31, are those on which the Committee spent the most time. The Committee invested significant amounts of time listening to and taking evidence from people who came forward. The whole idea of that was to ensure that the Bill would be the best that it could be within its limited scope.

We cannot get away from the fact that the redress scheme was created as an admissions-based scheme. That was part of our deliberations. People who spent time in one of those institutions — whether it was a private, religious or state institution is immaterial — should not be discriminated against or excluded by a date. From the get-go, the architecture of the Bill was that it would be an admissions-based payment. The inclusion of the posthumous date of 29 September 2011, as set out in clause 31(5)(b), excludes and discriminates against people who were in institutions. I assure those who are watching that the Committee took every opportunity in front of it to try to make sure that that would not happen, but we tried in vain. I will look back on that with deep regret, because the Bill is going forward today with something that we could not sort out at Committee Stage.

At Committee Stage, members raised legitimate concerns regarding the additional costs that would be incurred by removing that posthumous date. It is a democratic process, so they are entitled to set out their concerns. However, to go back to the reasoning for the Bill and its architecture, which is an admissions-based payment scheme: nobody should be left out because of the inclusion of a date. I deeply regret that the posthumous date will still be in the Bill after today.

The Committee approached the Bill with the moral perspective of doing what was right. We left aside the religion of the institutions; that did not come into our thinking. It was a case of what was morally right to do by the victims and survivors. I look at it as a shame — a shame — that that amendment was not allowed to be debated on the Floor. Fair is fair, whether you were in one of these institutions or you were not. If you were in an institution, you should be entitled to an admissions-based payment. I said that the posthumous date and the amount payable were interlinked, and I was clear that, if the posthumous date was removed, I would have settled and compromised on the £10,000 —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston — this goes wider to Members. Latitude has been given to Members to set out the context of evidence received by the Committee on the issue. However, I must ask again that Members do not refer to amendments that are not before us and decisions that have been taken around those amendments. In light of that, I ask that the debate continue with the decorum that is befitting of the issue, so that I do not have to rise to my feet to continually remind Members of something that was requested of them a number of times earlier today. Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The overwhelming evidence that the Committee received related to the removal of the posthumous date. I have come to the conclusion that, with that date still in the legislation, I am happy to support Sinéad's amendment to have a £12,000 payment. If we were looking at it with an inflationary increase, it would be between £13,000 and £13,500, as has been set out by Sinéad. I am happy to support her amendment.

Amendment No 30 recognises a small group of people. I understand the pushback from the junior Minister and the concern that she has raised — I take those points on board — but my fear is that if Mr Carroll does not move his amendment and put it to the vote, and if there is talk behind the scenes, there is no guarantee that the amendment will make it on to the Marshalled List at Further Consideration Stage. On that basis, I encourage him to move his amendment. If discussions need to take place further down the line, they can take place and a further amendment brought back from TEO on that basis. Those are my remarks on the second group of amendments.

People will leave here disappointed today. Many victims and survivors came into the process with optimism, but I believe that the news that they got at the start of the week has altered that. My thoughts are with them today. I can understand why they will leave this place feeling let down. People came to the Committee to give evidence and made themselves very vulnerable in doing so. They gave first-hand accounts of what they experienced and what happened to them in those institutions. The majority of Committee members, including me, tried our best to set up a scheme that would recognise that and not discriminate against anybody by a date being left in the legislation.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Further to your interjection during Mr Gaston's contribution, and given the huge sensitivity around the refusal by the Speaker to accept the Committee amendment, I ask that you convey to the Speaker the fact that we would appreciate some transparency in relation to his decision not to approve the amendment to remove the posthumous date. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Ms Bradshaw, the request will be referred, through me, to the Speaker's Office, but I remind Members again — I am a bit disappointed that I have to — that we must not have these continual referrals to decisions previously made and challenges to the Speaker's decisions. Your remarks — [Interruption.]

Your remarks have been noted — [Interruption.]

Your remarks have been noted and will be referred to the Speaker's Office.

Ms Ní Chuilín: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have done it, and every other Member who has spoken has done it. Timothy, this has to be a first: I am defending you. I am getting that on the record. Every Member mentioned 1922 to 1995. I appreciate that if you mention the amendment that brings it into new ground, but you can see how upset people are.

Therefore, on behalf of the people in the Public Gallery and ourselves, I ask that you bring the matter back to the Speaker. That is it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Ms Ní Chuilín, I mentioned a moment ago that that issue will be referred back to the Speaker's Office. I will point out again that we are going back to this repetitive pattern. I understand the strength of feeling, but I hope that people also understand the ruling on challenging the Speaker's decision. The comments will be taken back. I think that that is the third time that I have said that today. I hope that this is the last time that I have to make a request for there not to be continued reference to those decisions.

Mr Dickson: Much has been said about the second group of amendments. Much of it is about entitlement to payment and the amount. I do not intend to go into any further detail, because other Members have already done that. It was clear to the Committee that £10,000 was an insufficient sum of money. It is a figure that was used for the historical institutional abuse victims a number of years ago, and, as other Members have mentioned, inflation has eroded that figure ever since. I am pleased that the junior Minister has agreed with Sinéad's amendment, and I have no doubt that the House will unite around that today.

Yes, there is an understanding of the budgetary pressures on the Department, and officials have outlined those to us on numerous occasions when in front of the Committee. However, I reiterate the point that I made earlier to junior Minister Reilly in respect of all those who will ultimately have to contribute, either to this admissions-based scheme or, finally, to the redress scheme for those who will ultimately go to the public inquiry. That definitely includes the institutions, this place — we are the inheritors of the previous Government in this place — and the United Kingdom Government, which had Ministers who were responsible over many years.

I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you have referred to the Speaker's ruling, and I hope not to incur your wrath, but it is worth reminding the House that our Committee report dealt with the removal of the arbitrary posthumous date of 29 September in clause 31. The Committee did not reach that decision or position lightly. That position directly addressed the concerns of survivors and campaign groups. We heard from organisation after organisation. We heard from Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice, Birth Mothers and their Children Together, WAVE, Adopt NI and experts from our two universities and from Dublin City University. The evidence was consistent and overwhelming. That date is borrowed from an announcement of an entirely different inquiry, and it has no principled basis in justice.

I need to say this clearly to those people who wrote to our Committee and made incredibly brave and emotional statements with regard to the legislation: the legislation is not finished; there will be a Further Consideration Stage and a Final Stage. Therefore, while I cannot hold out hope for those who are sitting in the Public Gallery today, there are opportunities to put this right, and I will continue to press for that in the other forums and the right places, if this Chamber is not the right place to do that today.

The Bill does important things, and I will support its passage, with the caveats that my colleague Paula Bradshaw outlined about the various amendments in group 2, but we need to be direct about what is in front of us today. Our Committee's amendment to clause 31 has not been selected, and I want to place on record my disappointment about that.

Mr Carroll: As I said before, I do not sit on the Committee, but, like others, my party took direction from victims and survivors through various meetings and correspondence. I thank them for that, and I acknowledge, as I did earlier, the people in the Public Gallery.

I will begin with the words of Lisa, a constituent of mine. She contacted other Members ahead of the debate. She is a daughter whose mother will be excluded because of the September 2011 cut-off date. She wrote:

It is worth putting that on the record, and it is the reality of what we are debating today. Justice for victims, survivors and families, in a general sense, cannot be dictated by budgets and balance sheets. I am concerned to hear talk of compromise already. When I hear that, alarm bells ring in my head. We talk about money in the Chamber in a general sense. We talk about whether the state considers certain lives to be worthy of acknowledgement and, in many cases, redress and payment. That is a moral and political question, not a financial one. The posthumous cut-off date of September 2011 is a disgrace.

Like many Members here, I was contacted by Maria, an adopted adult, whose birth mother was placed in Marianvale. Maria's brother died by suicide in 2002. He suffered his entire life with depression and identity crisis as a result of his closed adoption. He was born in Marianvale, sent alone as a newborn to Nazareth House in Fahan and adopted back to the North just months later. He died never knowing the full circumstances of his birth. Under the draft legislation, his life and suffering do not count for anything. While his adopted sister, whose birth mother died in 2014, is rightly included — these are members of the same family going through the same institutions and impacted by the same trauma — the cut-off date undermines equality for them.

Mark, who, I believe, is in Gallery, having travelled from Donegal to watch the debate, described the truth recovery process as:

He is right. I do not get the Minister's argument about tiers. This is about recognising abuse, especially when it happened to one person in different settings and scenarios. That is the point of the amendment in my name. When fundamental amendments on the issue were blocked without a vote, that only deepened suspicion amongst survivors about their campaign for justice. I note Members' comments that those survivors are owed an explanation.

I will go through my amendments. Amendment No 32 increases the standardised payment from £10,000 to £20,000. Amendment No 33 increases the posthumous payment for eligible relatives from £2,000 to £5,000. Obviously, the original £10,000 was the same amount that was proposed under the HIA scheme back in 2017, almost a decade years ago. We have had a cost-of-living and inflation crisis since then. I know that the Committee heard from different groups and different figures. However, £20,000 was certainly mentioned. The £12,000 that the Member for Foyle is proposing is certainly better than £10,000. Frankly, I do not think that it is enough, but, going by the mood of the room, there seems to be consensus in the House on that figure. As, I believe, people said during the Committee's deliberations, people's lives are worth more than a whiplash claim. In a general sense, how come the cost is counted only when it comes to redress? The financial and emotional cost is rarely counted when it comes to the victims.

Questions were raised about amendment No 30, which is fair enough. It provides for more than one payment for individuals who were both adoptees and birth mothers. Those are people who were admitted to institutions twice; once as children who were taken from their own mothers, and then again as pregnant women. My understanding is that, as other Members have said, they are a very small group of people. The additional cost is minimal, although cost, frankly, should not come into the debate. Their experiences —.

Ms Reilly: I thank the Member for taking my intervention and for his clarification on amendment No 30. Can he further clarify how it is drafted? Clause 31, as it is currently drafted, refers to "persons", which means that all persons who were admitted into an institution, once or multiple times, would receive the standardised payment. It does not specify whether someone was admitted as a baby and then as a mother. It defines anyone who is admitted under "persons" as a whole. I am just trying to understand the drafting.

Mr Carroll: Yes. Amendment No 30 states:

The "persons" in the original —.

Ms Reilly: If you go back to the clause, you see that it refers to:

At the minute, clause 31(8) states "A person", so, in the scenario that your amendment describes, a person is not defined as being someone who was admitted as a baby and as a birth mother thereafter. I am just trying to understand the drafting of the amendment.

Mr Carroll: That is fair enough. If I understand your question correctly, perhaps "persons" need to be added to it. I was referring to amendment No 30, but I am happy to move on. If "persons" need to be added to it, I can do that. Apologies, I have lost my train of thought.

The group of people included under amendment No 30 is, in a general sense, small, and the costs would be minimal, but their experiences are distinct, and they deserve to be recognised on their own terms. Hopefully, that can be agreed on. There was a danger that the other junior Minister, when proposing the group 2 amendments, was trying to tie me up in bureaucratic knots. Not to be too disrespectful, but, frankly, that is how it seemed to me. A small group of people are being missed out, and I think that they should be included in the scheme, as do most people.

There was some talk about unintended consequences from amendment Nos 45 and 46, but there could be unintended consequences from any legislation. Any legislation can be challenged in a court for not being wide-ranging, proper or approved of by the people on whom it impacts. I make that general point. Unintended consequences can apply to legislation as drafted or as amended.

Amendment No 45 seeks to add St Joseph's Children's Home on the Ravenhill Road, Coneywarren Children's Home in Omagh and Nazareth House in Portadown to the list of eligible institutions. The junior Minister talked about the amendment being outside the scope of the Bill. I would challenge that. The Bill is about abuse and neglect, primarily of women, but if a child is taken from a mother without her consent, that will inflict huge emotional abuse and harm on both the mother and the child. We have Nazareth House in Donegal as well, which operated as a transit and destination point for children who were moved between jurisdictions. Those children were effectively trafficked across the border, with no oversight, to which others have referred. It should be on the list. Coleshill Children's Home near Enniskillen is another glaring omission.

I am no expert. I am but one MLA, and I am not on the Committee for the Executive Office, but, from my communication with victims and survivors, I know that there are too many institutions absent from schedule 2. From my reading of things, it therefore does not make sense to vote against the inclusion of three other homes.

Amendment No 46 seeks to include birth mothers as eligible relatives of the deceased so that they, too, can receive a posthumous payment. A mother who lost her child to forced adoption, and who may have spent the rest of her life searching, grieving and never recovering, should not be excluded from recognition of that loss.

I will quote from a communication that we received from another victim and survivor from the forum on amendment Nos 45 and 46. Hopefully, it covers some of the issues that Members have raised. It states:

People should not be excluded from the legislation. I urge Members to vote for my amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call junior Minister Bunting to make a winding-up speech on the second group of amendments.

Ms Bunting: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to Members for their contributions to the debate and for the considered way in which, and tone with which, the amendments have been debated. This has been and continues to be a deeply sensitive and important piece of work. It is right that the Assembly has taken the time to examine the provisions carefully and in a respectful manner.

At the heart of the Bill is a clear and urgent objective, which is to deliver redress to victims and survivors in a way that is timely, practical and underpinned by the five guiding principles of trauma-informed practice: safety, trustworthiness, collaboration, choice and empowerment.

The scheme is the outworking of a sustained and innovative collaboration between the victims and survivors and the truth recovery design panel. That partnership has been central to shaping the principles and the practical delivery of the scheme before the Assembly today.

Many of those affected are now in an older age group. They have already waited far too long for recognition, and we, as Ministers, have listened and have been very conscious throughout the design of the scheme that further delay would risk denying that recognition altogether to some. That is why, in line with the design panel recommendations, the scheme is being brought forward ahead of a full public inquiry. It is undoubtedly an unusual step, but it reflects the need to act now rather than ask victims and survivors to wait for what will inevitably be a longer evidential process. Our focus has been on what can be delivered at pace, while still ensuring fairness, consistency and sensitivity.

The truth recovery design panel also recommended a two-step redress process encapsulating a standardised payment and an individually assessed payment. I reiterate that the standardised payment debated today is not based on a detailed assessment of individual experience and does not require victims and survivors to provide a traumatic statement of what happened to them. Instead, it provides early recognition via a single fixed payment based on admission to a relevant institution. That is a fundamental design choice. It means that every eligible person is treated equally, regardless of the length of time they spent in an institution or the particular circumstances of their experience. Again, I will say that that consistency is not intended to diminish anyone's experience; rather, it is intended to avoid forcing comparisons between different and deeply personal experiences.

I will address Mr Gaston's concerns around the posthumous date of 2011 in the Bill and the rationale behind the inclusion of that date, but, before I get into the specifics of that, we recognise the strength of feeling among victims and survivors on the desire for a broader scheme. However, the priority at this stage is to deliver redress in a manner that is workable and capable of being delivered now. I will point out that, while there may be some who are ineligible for the standardised payment, as the Bill is currently drafted, they are not necessarily ineligible for the individually assessed payment. It is important to have that point on the record.

If Members will bear with me, I have a number of notes, and I want to make sure that I address Members' points. With regard to the date of 29 September 2011, I want to make it clear to the House that posthumous dates are a standard feature of state redress schemes and are usually linked to an announcement or an apology that signifies a meaningful turning point in state acknowledgement and steps towards redress. The Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme uses the date of the Stormont Agreement in 2014, for example, and the Irish Government's mother-and-baby institutions payment scheme is tied to the formal state apology made by Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin in 2021.

When we consulted on the policy for the redress scheme in 2024, the date proposed was 15 November 2021. That was the day when the truth recovery design panel recommendations were accepted in the Assembly. In response to victims and survivors and the truth recovery independent panel, we moved the date further back to better reflect the start of the process of formal state recognition and steps towards accountability and redress. On 29 September 2011, a public inquiry into historical institutional abuse was announced by the Executive. That led to the birth mothers' campaign for inclusion and UN bodies' recommendation for redress for those who had been harmed in Magdalene laundries and similar institutions. That date is also considered the very earliest that an expectation of redress could have reasonably been formed by a victim and survivor.

We recognise that that date has been disappointing for many family members of the deceased, and we are committed to exploring other forms of memorialisation with victims and survivors to properly commemorate their deceased loved ones.

Mr Brett: Will the junior Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: I will.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the junior Minister's focus on that point. It was a particular point of deliberation at Committee, because we had listened strongly to the views of victims and survivors. Advice to the Committee from Executive Office officials, however, was clear that no admission-based scheme on this issue anywhere in the world is without a posthumous date. It is important to read that into the record.

Ms Bunting: I thank the Member for his contribution.

In considering the appropriate date, we carefully reflected on a range of significant milestones that aligned with the usual rationale for selecting a posthumous date: a meaningful point in state acknowledgement and the point at which an expectation of redress begins to form. Those dates included the recommendations from international bodies in 2013, the establishment of the interdepartmental working group in 2016 and the Assembly's acceptance of the truth recovery design panel's recommendations in September 2021.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the junior Minister for giving way. Does she acknowledge the despair and harm that were caused when members of the consultative forum were first presented with the Bill and that date of 29 September 2011? You have had months to go back to that consultative forum and present an alternative date, which could even be 1995. Why have you not taken that opportunity? We would not be in the position that we are in today, with people experiencing pain and suffering because that amendment was not selected. Why did you not take the opportunity to go back to the forum to which you provide secretariat support?

Ms Bunting: I thank the Chair of the Committee for her intervention.

The truth is that numerous dates were considered for various reasons. I have no doubt that the Committee will be familiar with the dates that were considered. It is fair to say that victims and survivors themselves do not necessarily have an agreed time frame either. [Interruption.]

There are a number of outworkings in respect of having much earlier dates, relating to records and so on. All those things had to be borne in mind. I also point out that other jurisdictions have gone with a much later date. The reason that we moved back 10 years was to try to find some means —. Look, I appreciate that that is not an easy decision for anybody. We have tried to work our way through it and find something that is reasonable and acceptable, but we must accept that nothing will be acceptable to everybody. We tried. It has all been a process of trying to find the best way and the right way to —.

Mr Gaston: Will the junior Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: Yes, I will.

Mr Gaston: You talked about records having to be "borne in mind". What has that got to do with a posthumous date? Victims and survivors should not be discriminated against and not allowed into the scheme because the state, health trusts or religious institutions do not have the necessary records available. I heard that nonsense — nonsense is what it is — at Committee last week. Victims and survivors should not be discriminated against because somebody has not got their paperwork sorted out. A person was either in one of those institutions or they were not: it should be as simple as that. TEO introduced the admissions-based legislation, and it is trying to narrow the parameters as to who should and should not get in. That is not right.

Ms Bunting: It is not about TEO trying to narrow anything. As I indicated, posthumous dates are standard in redress schemes; they are absolutely standard. Where there is an issue is in landing on the right date. I will come to the issue of the records. The reason why I raised it in that context was to do with sensitivity and disappointment and trying not to put people through —.

I accept the Member's point about people not being discriminated against because of records, but that is not the issue. The issue is also about being sensitive to what may emerge from that. Where records are not available, people would be put through a whole other series of hoops and so on. There are sensitivities around all of that, and we were trying to take account of those sensitivities. This is not a grand scheme to exclude people. I reiterate what I said when I gave evidence to the Committee. What the Executive would like to do and what they can practically do are not necessarily the same things.

If it is fine with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am going to move on.

Mr Dickson: Will the junior Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: Yes.

Mr Dickson: This is such an important and difficult issue to deal with. The Chair of the Committee indicated to you — everyone in the House will acknowledge — that TEO has engaged extensively with a wide range of groups. However, there seems to be some obfuscation around why you did not engage on, or how you came to a decision on, the date of 29 September. How did you come to the decision about that date? How did you do that? Did you do it on your own, or can you genuinely point us to who you consulted with in order to get to that date?

Ms Bunting: I presume that, because there have been so many interventions, we have forgotten how I started my remarks and the points that I outlined. This is the point that I am trying to make. I am trying to demonstrate the rationale for how we reached this point. I can assure Members that various dates were considered, including 1953, for example. Numerous dates were considered, and some of that was before my time. However, I am certain that the Committee will have received evidence on that. I would be surprised if the Committee had not received details of what had previously been considered, and why and how that date was reached. Nevertheless, I will ensure that the appropriate documentation is afforded to the Committee so that its members can see for themselves, and understand and scrutinise, how the 2011 date was reached. I hope that that will prove helpful to the Deputy Chair of the Committee.

Mrs Dillon: Will the junior Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: Yes.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Minister agree that, while I assume that the Committee is well aware of how the date was reached, the issue was that you did not agree?

Ms Bunting: That is a question for the members of the Committee to answer, not for me.

I will return to the rationale and some of the considerations behind that decision. Each of the points that were considered in the run-up to this represented an important step in the growing recognition of the issues and the development of a formal response. However, having considered those developments in the round, we considered that the date of 29 September 2011 represented the earliest point at which a reasonable expectation could have begun to form. That is not the first time that that has happened with regard to decision-making. It reflects the point at which these matters first began to enter the public and policy space in a meaningful way, with increasing visibility and engagement from government.

I am going to move on to amendment No 30. I will say again that allowing multiple payments risks undermining the approach. Members know that we looked at other jurisdictions and other countries' schemes. The standardised payment that we are proposing puts the mother, and the child, who is now an adult, on an equal footing. That differs from the Irish Government's mother-and-baby institution payment, whereby a child, now an adult, must have been in a listed institution for longer than six months in order to be eligible for redress. In Australia, Victoria's forced adoption redress scheme entirely excludes children, who are now adults, who were separated from their birth mothers. Both schemes are also more restrictive when it comes to posthumous claims, with the Republic of Ireland's using a date of 2021 and Australia's permitting no posthumous claims at all. As you can see, we gave consideration to all of that and tried to look at best practice in other places.

Another key design panel recommendation that we listened to was that the standardised payment should not require successful applicants to sign a waiver, preventing them from taking future civil action. That reflects the nature of the payment as one of acknowledgement, rather than compensation based on the specific circumstances of an individual case.

Those are tangible ways in which we have attempted to listen to victims and survivors. They are the direct result of the collaborative truth recovery design panel process. The Executive have sought to strike a fair and balanced approach that compares favourably with that of other jurisdictions. The standardised payment recognises the need to provide meaningful, timely acknowledgement to all those eligible while reflecting the nature of the payment as a universal scheme based on admission, rather than individual assessment. Of course, individually assessed payments will follow the public inquiry. That scheme will provide an opportunity for people's lived experiences, including the severity and duration of harm, to be more fully considered.

Both truth recovery schemes are part of a wider redress framework. We must be clear that financial payment is only one element of that framework. We have a comprehensive support package in place for victims and survivors, including through the Victims and Survivors Service.

Ms Ní Chuilín made important points about documentation and records. I will also reflect on Mr Gaston's point in that regard. We have been working closely with the Department of Health to improve access to records, recognising how important that is for many individuals seeking answers about their past and how difficult that has been for some. Our recent engagement with the Health Minister focused on that work and the improvements that will follow. There has been investment in preservation, access and standardisation via the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) and the health trusts, but we appreciate that there is much more to do. We have met the Health Minister on that important issue, and we know that that area has been and will continue to be vital for victims and survivors. We are working closely with health and social care trusts to manage the expected increase in requests. Options being explored include a specialist team and a central index to make records easier to locate.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: I will.

Mr Carroll: I take the Minister back to amendment No 30. Does she agree with me and other Members that the number of people who are both adoptees and birth mothers is likely to be small? In addition, aside from citing international examples of where that is not in legislation, will she explain why the amendment should not be supported?

Ms Bunting: I thank the Member for his intervention. I was inordinately clear about why it should not be supported in the course of my opening remarks. The standardised payment is an acknowledgement that people were institutionalised. It is not a means by which to address the potential harm that they suffered, the experiences that they went through or the abuse that they may have suffered. The purpose of it was to enable people to get a quick payment, acknowledging that they were admitted to an institution. I will reiterate the difficulty with the Member's amendment: it would remove the element of standardisation. Although it would take into account an individual's experience and the number of times that they may have been admitted, it would not necessarily take into account the length of time for which they were admitted. I think that that —

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: That is unfair. It is not the right thing to do.

I will give way to the Member, but I am keen to move on.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. I was gracious with my time as well, but I thank the Minister. Will she answer the question? Is it the Executive Office's opinion that it would likely be a small group of women to whom the standardised payment would extend?

Ms Bunting: I cannot stand up here and mislead the House. At this stage, I cannot verify the numbers. The issue, again, is that it is not about the numbers; it is about the principle at the point at which it is a standardised payment, and I have outlined why. There is a fundamental and inherent fairness issue around all of this. I understand the Member's point and have sympathy with all of it, but the point is that it is a standardised payment. Where all of the issues arise with multiple admissions, extended periods in the institutions, the potential harm and abuse that people suffered and the impact on their lives, those absolutely and fundamentally must come out in a public inquiry. They certainly will be taken into account for an individually assessed payment. This is not necessarily the right or best place for that.

I understand the Member's point, but I think that I have made mine and made my rebuttal of his point. He may disagree, but we are where we are on that. I cannot concur with his analysis of it.

I want to come back to the point around records. As I said, there has been investment in preservation, access and standardisation by PRONI and the trusts, and we appreciate that there is more to do. We have met the Health Minister on the issue, and we know that it is an area that will continue to be vital for victims and survivors. Options being explored with regard to the increase in requests for health trusts are to include a specialist team and a central index, which should make it easier for records to be located. We have also funded PRONI's work to digitise institutional records, which should improve access and streamline the redress and inquiry processes. PRONI has digitised approximately 6,000 private records across 32 collections, with over 57,000 digital images. That has helped the panel, and it will help the inquiry. I note that members of PRONI are in the Public Gallery, and we thank them for their excellent work on that.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: Yes, I will.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Minister. You mentioned the central index with regard to accessing health records. That is certainly welcome, and it is making progress. However, we have heard at the Committee that, with some of the trusts, the condition that the records are being kept in means that they are being exposed to the elements. Do you need to go a step further in that it is not just a central record or a central index of all the records that you need but you need to bring them all to the one place and ensure that they are kept in a safe environment such as PRONI? The Committee visited it. They are first-class facilities with easy access, and everything is kept in order. My big concern from what we have heard is that the health service is lagging behind in the way that it stores the records and the condition that it keeps them in.

Ms Bunting: I appreciate the Member's intervention. It allows me to clarify. We raised that issue at our meeting with the Health Minister, and there are difficulties, because some of those records are still used in current-day circumstances around adoption. To centralise them all could cause difficulty for people who are currently involved in adoption and some issues that arise around that. It is not as straightforward as the Member thinks, and we sought clarity on that.

With regard to how records are kept, we can certainly ask our officials to raise it with officials in Health, but I point out that preservation has now been agreed and implemented, so there should not be circumstances where records are being kept in a manner that means that they could degenerate. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the Member and, indeed, to the House.

I return to the points that I was making around redress. Further important elements of redress are still to come. They include options for memorialisation, and they must be developed carefully and in partnership with victims and survivors and at the right time. It is essential that those aspects are shaped by those directly affected so that they are meaningful, respectful and enduring. In designing the scheme, we have also been clear about its scope. It is intentionally focused on female-centred institutions and takes an inclusive approach in that all those who were admitted or whose mothers were admitted are eligible for redress. That is because the scheme is intended to address a specific historical injustice: the experience of women and girls and their children with a system marked by gender-specific stigma and discrimination.

Amendment No 45, which seeks to add children's homes to the list, would fundamentally change that central focus. Although we fully recognise the experiences that informed the amendment, we have to focus on what the standardised payment is there to do. The Executive have already made a significant funded commitment in the Bill, with further costs to come through the individually assessed payment. I must point out that, at a time when public finances and services are under considerable and sustained pressure, we must be mindful of what can realistically be delivered and of the potential negative impact on other Departments and services if costs were to rise significantly. The inclusion of amendment No 45 would put additional strain on budgets across Health, Education and Justice and risk impacting on the delivery of front-line services on which the public and some victims and survivors rely. That is not to mention the impact on victims and survivors, which I will come on to shortly.

As elected representatives, our responsibility is to ensure that any scheme is not only fair in principle but deliverable in practice. That means maintaining a clear, focused and sustainable approach rather than making changes that could compromise its operation, delay delivery or create risks that cannot be managed effectively. Ultimately, it comes down to making difficult but necessary choices. We must focus on what can be implemented now for the benefit of victims and survivors for whom the scheme was designed, rather than on pursuing changes that, however well intentioned, could undermine the deliverability of the scheme as a whole. Expanding the Bill's scope would inevitably add complexity, potentially leading to processing delays and longer waiting times, which would risk there being a negative impact on the very people whom the scheme was established to support. Extending posthumous eligibility to mothers could also raise complex questions about equality and the respective bases for payments. It would not ensure a posthumous payment for all birth mothers, including those who lost a child in infancy, and might instead risk re-traumatising individuals. Of that, we must be careful.

The more appropriate place for those extremely sad circumstances to be addressed is through the individually assessed payment scheme. With that, I will turn to amendment No 46, about which Ms McLaughlin raised some issues about blockage, and I thank her for her question about deceased mothers being added at a later point. Under schedule 3, "eligible relatives" currently means a spouse and surviving children. To confirm, there is no provision to change the definition of "eligible relatives" via secondary legislation. As I said, that would probably be best served being dealt with through the IAP process. We need to be careful about some of the risks involved from opening up the definition. We have dealt with some of those risks, but I trust that what I have said addresses the Member's query about blockage and shows that we did give consideration to it.

As I deal with amendment No 46, I take the opportunity to thank my predecessor, Pam Cameron, for her work on the Bill.

These are difficult and sensitive issues with which we have grappled throughout the policy development, for all the reasons that Members have raised. No decisions were made in haste. Rather, they are the outworkings of the Queen's University and Ulster University report, of the truth recovery design panel's recommendations, of the public consultation and of the ongoing engagement with victims and survivors. We engaged with schemes in other jurisdictions and looked at best practice locally, nationally and internationally. The legislation represents a significant step forward. It reflects years of advocacy and engagement with and work by victims and survivors, and it forms part of the Executive's wider commitment to effective remedy, which goes beyond just financial redress.

As we conclude consideration of this group of amendments, we therefore ask Members to support the amendments as indicated and to oppose those that could delay redress, place the sustainability or core purpose of the scheme at risk or create outcomes that might re-traumatise victims and survivors.

Our shared objective must be to ensure that redress is delivered quickly to those who have already waited for far too long.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am hearing Noes from all round the House, but Mr Carroll's "Aye" has been noted.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We now move to the third group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 35, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 36 to 43 and amendment Nos 47 to 63.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that we may have missed a few amendments in that grouping.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): If Members take a few moments, we will check our list, but we think that we are up to date.

Mr Carroll: I think that it is amendment Nos 44 to 46.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Carroll, thank you for being up to date as we go, but we are not going to put the Question on amendment Nos 44 to 46 until we get that point after the next part of the debate. However, thank you very much indeed for keeping us on track.

We now come to the third group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 35, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 36 to 43 and amendment Nos 47 to 63. I call junior Minister Bunting to move amendment No 35 and address the other amendments in the group.

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I beg to move amendment No 35:

Ms Bunting: These amendments focus on a specific element of the Bill where further refinement is both necessary and appropriate. Their purpose is to ensure that, as drafted, the provisions operate in a way that is clear, coherent and aligned with the broader intent of the legislation. [Interruption.]

At Consideration Stage —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, will you take your seat again? Ladies and gentlemen, if you are leaving the Assembly Chamber, please do so quietly and with a bit of decorum. Everybody needs to be heard. Thank you very much indeed. Back to you, Minister.

Ms Bunting: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

At Consideration Stage, it is right that we test the detail of the Bill. The amendments in this group are intended to probe how those provisions will function in practice and to address areas where there is potential for uncertainty or unintended consequences. They reflect the engagement with stakeholders and careful consideration of how the Bill will be applied on the ground. In that sense, they are part of the normal and constructive process of improving legislation rather than altering its fundamental direction.

At the outset, before I address the specific amendments, I want to set out that the proposals are simply about ensuring that the Bill is as robust and workable as possible.

Amendment No 35 is about ensuring that the redress service can operate in a way that is efficient, proportionate and focused on delivering timely redress for the applicants. The amendment will give the president the necessary discretion to allocate cases according to their complexity, but that power would only be exercised where the president considers it appropriate to do so. The majority of standardised payment applications are expected to be straightforward, based on admission to a listed institution, and capable of being verified through existing records. In those circumstances, the president may decide that it is appropriate for simpler applications to be determined by known judicial members or the secretary of the redress service. The amendment provides the redress service with the flexibility to manage its caseload effectively, and, if required, to scale up delivery. It also allows us to use judicial expertise where it is most needed, and that is on the more complex or contested applications. Without that flexibility, there is a risk that straightforward cases could be delayed unnecessarily, with judicial time taken up on routine applications, which could be resolved more quickly through administrative routes. Ultimately, it is a sensible and proportionate measure, which equips the redress service to operate efficiently, while ensuring that decisions are taken at the right level, but only where the president considers it appropriate. We ask Members to support the amendment.

Amendment No 36 extends the window for an applicant to appeal a determination from 30 days to 90 days. That change has been informed by what we heard directly from victims and survivors, as well as the views of the Committee, both of whom supported a longer time frame. We recognise that individuals who engaged with the process may need additional time to seek advice, gather information or simply consider their position carefully. We ask Members to support the amendment to extend the appeal time frame and ensure that the process remains accessible and fair, while maintaining momentum in decision-making.

Amendment No 37 provides important clarity about where the responsibility for promoting the scheme sits. By placing a clear duty on the redress service to bring the scheme to the attention of eligible persons, it removes any ambiguity and ensures a proactive, structured approach to outreach. It also introduces an explicit duty to encourage applications. The aim of the scheme is to ensure that those who are entitled to redress can access it, and that requires more than simply making information available. That is particularly important in the context of these institutions, where shame and secrecy have often meant that individuals may not readily identify themselves as eligible or may be reluctant to come forward. For those reasons, we ask the House to support the amendment, which strengthens the scheme by placing a clear and active responsibility on the service, not just to inform but to engage and reach those who might otherwise remain unheard, ensuring that no one who is entitled to redress is left behind.

Next, I turn to the Department's three amendments to clause 39, and they are amendments No 38, 39 and 40. Those amendments provide important clarity about where the overall responsibility for supporting applicants sits. While the redress service will play a key operational role, ultimate responsibility for ensuring that appropriate advice and assistance is available lies with the Executive Office. A core principle of the scheme is that support should be accessible and delivered by experienced professionals in a way that is sensitive to the needs of victims and survivors, rather than relying on a process that is based on legal routes. Work is under way to develop a comprehensive support model in partnership with the Victims and Survivors Service, WAVE Trauma Centre and Advice NI to ensure that applicants are supported through every stage of the process. It is a critical element of the scheme because accessing redress should not be a complex, overwhelming experience, and it is essential that individuals can obtain the guidance that they need in a way that is accessible, sensitive and responsive to their circumstances. The amendments make clear that the support is not incidental and is a core part of delivery.

The amendments also provide for the redress service to meet legal costs in certain circumstances, such as where a signed affidavit is required. That is an important safeguard for cases where verification of admission through archival records is not necessarily possible. It ensures that applicants are not discouraged from engaging with the process due to financial barriers and that they can meet evidential requirements where necessary. Taken together, the provisions strengthen the scheme by aligning clear responsibility, practical support and appropriate safeguards, thus ensuring that victims and survivors are supported in a way that is meaningful and effective. We therefore urge the House to support amendment Nos 38. 39 and 40.

Amendment No 41 will create an important safeguard to protect the privacy and dignity of applicants who are engaging with the redress service. Making it an offence to contravene a restriction order issued by the president of the service reinforces the seriousness of the protections and ensures that sensitive information cannot be disclosed or misused without consequence. It is essential that applicants can engage with the scheme with confidence that their information will be handled appropriately. We ask Members to support the amendment, which brings the provision for the redress service into line with those already established for the inquiry under clause 23, thus ensuring consistency across the Bill. That parity is important for maintaining a coherent and robust framework in which the same standards of confidentiality and enforcement apply.

Amendment No 42 would allow for regulations to establish a procedure to enable an applicant to nominate a beneficiary where no eligible relative can be identified. It is important to note that, under the Bill, eligible relatives are defined specifically as being those who may apply for a £2,000 payment on behalf of a deceased applicant. That is distinct from the separate situation in which an applicant passes away while their own application is ongoing. Introducing a provision for nomination in the context of eligible relatives risks conflating those two separate and distinct processes. The legislation as drafted already provides a sufficiently broad power to cover any procedure in the event of an applicant's death. That power is deliberately flexible and would be capable of accommodating arrangements similar to the type that the Member proposes, should that be considered appropriate.

There are, however, important sensitivities to consider. The truth recovery independent panel has expressed reservations about asking applicants to nominate a single beneficiary. It has warned that taking such an approach could risk creating or exacerbating tensions within families. The panel suggested that, in those circumstances, any award should form part of an applicant's estate and be distributed in accordance with the ordinary rules of succession. That approach avoids placing additional strain on families at what is already a difficult time. The ability to nominate a beneficiary already exists in the making of a will, and there are important safeguards in place to do that. There is also a risk of creating conflict between the person nominated through the application process and the legal beneficiaries of a person's estate. I suggest to Members, and impress on them, that that is fundamentally a matter that would be better addressed through secondary legislation. That would allow space for careful consideration, informed by consultation and engagement with stakeholders, including victims and survivors, before any final approach is determined. It is important that we do not seek to impose an unnecessary and potentially flawed amendment in haste at this stage, when a fuller and more considered consultation with victims and survivors is warranted and essential. Ultimately, it is a procedural matter, and the appropriate and natural place for it to be dealt with is in secondary legislation, where the necessary detail can be developed with care and proper scrutiny.

We must also be clear about the limited circumstances in which the issue would arise. The provision would apply only where an applicant passes away while their application is actively being processed. Owing to the expected relatively quick processing times for making the standardised payment, that should relate to only an extremely small number of cases. Given that the Bill already provides flexibility for any process in the event of an applicant's passing, and in light of the concerns outlined about the confusing terminology used, as well as the clear merit in undertaking further exploration and engagement on the issue with victims and survivors, we do not consider the amendment to be necessary. We therefore ask Members not to support amendment No 42 and to consider that area of work as part of secondary legislation.

Amendment No 43 will bring important clarity and assurance to the governance of the redress service. It sets out clear and proportionate provisions for the resignation and dismissal of service members, ensuring that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to support the service's effective functioning. That will provide greater certainty to those appointed to those roles by clearly setting out the terms under which they hold office and the conditions under which those arrangements may come to an end. However, it is equally important to be clear that the power to remove a member is a safeguard, not a routine measure. It would only be exercised where necessary and in clearly defined circumstances. We therefore ask Members to support the amendment.

Amendment Nos 47 to 63 to schedule 4 set out technical amendments to social security legislation that are required as a consequence of the Social Security (Income and Capital Disregards) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. Those were provided to us by the Minister for Communities and his officials, and we thank them for their help in ensuring that a redress payment will not affect an applicant's ability to access social security benefits. That is an important reassurance for victims and survivors and indeed the House. We therefore ask Members to support those amendments.

Ms Bradshaw: I do not intend to speak for long on this group of amendments. As a party, we will support all of them, but I want to make some remarks about amendment No 39, which is to clause 39 and states:

Junior Minister, the Executive Office Committee has the benefit of hearing evidence from the likes of those who are involved in the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme and, previously, those involved in the historical institutional abuse redress scheme. It is my observation that, when applicants were provided with support by the voluntary sector, as in the case of the VSS, the applications were far more robust, far more timely and more complete and had a higher prospect of getting through. I intend no disrespect to those in the legal profession, but some of the applications through that route were seriously delayed, incomplete and caused unnecessary delays. Therefore, whilst I recognise that there is a time and place for legal support in the process, we will support the amendment on the basis that the delegated legislation that comes forward will include a preference for applicants to receive support through the community and voluntary sector as opposed to through the legal profession, because we think that that would be a far more trauma-informed approach.

This is the last time that I will speak in the debate, so I thank the victims and survivors who came here today. I thank the voluntary and community sector for its support, including WAVE, and I also want to put on record my thanks to Marie Breen Smyth, who is the current chair of the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum. She has been superb and has been a breath of fresh air since she took up that post. She has been a really valuable link between the Committee and victims and survivors. Finally, I thank the Committee team, which has been superb, the Bill Office team and also, of course, the Executive Office officials, who have supported us during the Bill's progress.

Ms McLaughlin: The group 3 amendments deal with the application process and are largely a tidying-up process.

This is the final group of amendments that we will consider today, so I want to take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to the Committee Chair, Paula Bradshaw. She has done tremendous work, has been very committed to the Bill and has ensured that it was given the transparency and scrutiny that it deserved. I really appreciate that. I also thank my colleagues from the Executive Office Committee. We have worked together on the scrutiny. We sometimes do not get the best press when it comes to working together, but this Bill was definitely a standout in that regard. I want to recognise that.

As I said in my first contribution, it has been a long day for the victims and survivors who have joined us and those who are, perhaps, listening at home. I thank you for allowing us to take the journey with you. It has been difficult.

There are standout people. The Chair is right to recognise Marie Breen Smyth, who has been tremendous. She has been a conduit of support not only for the victims and survivors but for us, as a Committee, as we got into the body of the Bill.

At its core, the Bill is about recognition for people who were failed by systems of authority for too long. For decades, the survivors were denied their basic dignity. While many of the amendments in the group may appear to be technical in nature and a sweep to tidy up any loose ends, they are still important because they shape how accessible, compassionate and effective the redress process will ultimately be. The amendments that relate to applications, appeals, legal assistance and public awareness all point towards the same principle: that survivors should not be left to navigate the process alone. For many people, engaging with a scheme like this will reopen many more painful memories and deeply personal experiences. The process therefore has to be survivor-led and focused at every stage. That includes ensuring that people are aware of the scheme; that there is access to advice and support; and that applications are dealt with fairly and sensitively.

We welcome the amendments that strengthen the governance arrangement for the service. Confidence in the process matters enormously. Survivors need to know that decisions will be made independently, professionally and with appropriate safeguards in place. The amendments that relate to consequential changes across social security legislation are also important, because redress payments should not create unintended financial consequences for survivors and families. We talked about that at length in the process of scrutinising the Bill. The payments are about the acknowledgement of historical wrongs; they should not end up disadvantaging people elsewhere in the system.

While we understand the intention behind amendment No 42, we would seek assurances that any mechanism that is created to allow payments to be nominated to another individual, where no eligible relative can be identified, ensures fairness in the system. I agree that that might be better addressed through secondary legislation just so that there are protections in place and we understand those protections. Again, I will wait to hear from the Member who tabled that amendment.

Throughout the debate, Members from across the Chamber have spoken about truth, accountability and dignity. That reflects the significance of what survivors have achieved in bringing us to this point. The legislation exists because of the courage of people who refused to allow their experiences to remain hidden; people who spoke out despite years of stigma and silence; and people who kept pushing for acknowledgement, even when many believed that they would never receive it. The Bill will not erase the past, but it can help to deliver something for which survivors have waited a long time: recognition, accountability and a process that finally places their experiences at the centre. Responsibility to deliver that now rests with all of us.

Mr Carroll: Like other Members, I will not speak for long on this group. I want to reflect some practical concerns about the application form as it is drafted, including concerns raised by my constituent Claire, who has gone through it in some detail.

The form requires a power of attorney or a controllership order for anyone who is acting on an applicant's behalf. Those are legal documents that, obviously, require legal fees to be paid. What most people need is a simply appointed nominee. That is a straightforward, free arrangement that, as I understand it, is already available through the Department for Communities. The form needs to reflect that. That needs to be addressed.

More troubling is the declaration that survivors are asked to sign stating that they are personally responsible for the accuracy of the information provided, with the threat of a fraud investigation if anything is wrong. That is deeply concerning, to put it mildly. The state and the institutions hold the records. They hold the information. Asking women who were imprisoned, coerced and stripped of their own history to personally guarantee accuracy is not trauma-informed by anybody's definition. It is, frankly, offensive and, by many people's estimation, can probably be regarded as victim-blaming and gaslighting as well.

Alongside my other amendments, I will also move amendment No 42, which will allow an applicant to nominate any person to receive a payment where no eligible relative exists. People should have the right to decide who benefits while they are still alive. The detail of the nomination process can and should be worked out through regulation. The junior Minister indicated her support for that, and I welcome that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Carroll: Yes, go ahead.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Gerry, just so that I can understand this — I think that this is what you are talking about, but just to be sure to be sure — amendment No 42 talks about nominating any beneficiary in the event that the applicant dies. Is it your opinion that it would be almost the same as when we get a beneficiary form for our pensions here and we have to nominate beneficiaries. Is your view in line with that principle rather than the stuff around succession law and all the rest of it?

Mr Carroll: That is a fair question. I do not have that type of form in front of me, to be honest, but the principle of that sounds fair enough. It is not my intention to mislead anybody, but that is what I hope that it is, just to allay those concerns. Again, I have not seen those forms, but we would support that in a general sense. I am happy to work on that.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Brett: I appreciate that the Member does not have the clarity that the other Member was seeking, but we are voting on legislation, and it is not a matter of, "I think that that is what this does". We are being asked to vote on the law that will govern the process. If the Member is not 100% sure of the impact of his amendment, would it not be best, perhaps, not to move it and then check to see what the actual impact of it is and then allow you, through Further Consideration Stage, to deliver the outcome that Cáral articulated?

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. I would say no, because we have a Further Consideration Stage and we can add to the amendment and clarify it through that. The Member can obviously table his own amendment if he wants.

Earlier today, the junior Minister indicated her support for the nomination process to be worked out through the regulation scheme. The basic provision should be in the Bill, and protections can be added if there are concerns from other Members. Given the scale of what was done to those women and children, a number of whom have already died without a penny of justice, it is the least that the House can do.

I pay tribute to all victims and survivors of institutional abuse and say a heartfelt "Thank you" to everyone who has been in touch to suggest amendments, express their concern and share their experiences. There are far too many individuals to mention, but I sincerely appreciate their time and their trust. If there are gaps in the next stage or if there is tidying up to do, both from the victims and survivors end and from a legislative point of view, I am not precious about that, and I am happy to work with people on it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I start by going to the amendment that Gerry has just spoken on. I have looked at it in the legislation again. What is in the Bill does not correspond with what the junior Minister said, to be frank — sorry — by way of explanation of what the pitfalls could be. Like all such legislation, there are issues. Basically, this is allowing people to determine who their beneficiaries are: I have no issue with that — none whatever — and I do not think that many other people have either.

As I said about other amendments that we can and cannot support, we will give a rationale for what we cannot support. On what we can support or what we are not too sure of, we will ask for clarification.

I am pleased that the Department has looked at the appeal mechanism in clause 38, and junior Minister Bunting said that 30 days was far too short. That is another issue that consistently came up. Apart from anything else, it would be OK if it were a legal process in a court where legal advocates could act on people's behalf and thrash out aspects of the law. However, those people are going into a scenario — I do not mean this in any patronising way at all because some of those people are forces of nature as they have had to fight for years to get to where we are now — and we keep talking about a trauma-informed approach, but then we start talking in legalese. It does not correspond with us, and it does not feel right. However, the issue around the right to appeal in clause 38 is welcome, and it is very sensible.

We will come to the other amendments in the group, but Phillip mentioned that I probably lamented about clause 17. However, with regard to orders restricting disclosure of information, I appreciate that the legislation is based on the 2005 Inquiries Act because there is nothing else to go by, and that is fine. However, we all want to make sure that there are no further impediments to people trying to access their actual birth dates. We have heard from many victims and survivors that they have the wrong birth certificates and their places of birth are wrong. We also found out that some victims have been buried in the wrong place and have been given the wrong name.

Clause 40 relates to orders to restrict disclosure of information. We want to make sure that there are clear explanations. It is helpfully laid out here. However, one of the things we are still concerned about — I think that you need to leave the flexibility with the president or chair of the inquiry, albeit that there could be a modular approach — is that that needs to be made clear, because no one worth their salt would be happy with any institution trying to apply restrictions to basic documents such as birth certificates or documents that relate to places of adoption, a birth parent or parents. We want to make sure that we get it right.

We are talking about the amendments, but the issue of advisers has been raised with us. People may be appointed as advisers to the service. There is a lot of talk here about making sure that the standardised payments are made as quickly as possible because it is admission-based. We are not talking about the individual payments, but we need to make sure that people have the choice about whom they put down. They do not need additional restrictions: it is their choice. I just want to make that clear.

I will leave it at that, because we have had a long day. There are still some of our victims and survivors with us in the Public Gallery. I suppose that the message is that they are going nowhere until we get all this sorted out.

I am happy with the clarification that Gerry provided. I asked him about a form that he has not seen, which was unfair, but I am giving you the general principles of it. A person should be able to define whom they nominate, rather than someone doing it through succession law, and that is fine.

We are happy with the other issue that I raised earlier, which we do not support, and it is fair that we do that. We do not support amendment No 45 because it will expand the scope of the Bill. Maybe it is something that we can come back to if we get further information, but, at this stage, I will leave it at that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call junior Minister Bunting to wind on group 3.

Ms Bunting: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My remarks on the group will be brief.

Before I sit down, I pay tribute to the victims and survivors in the Gallery and thank them for their courage and attendance today, as well as for sharing their lived experiences, some of which have been incredibly harrowing and difficult to hear. I commend them for their strength. I also commend them for taking the time to be here and their patience. The process can often be turgid, so I am grateful to them for being here. I admire them and their courage.

In closing the debate on group 3, I want to bring Members back to the central purpose of the amendments. Group 3 is about ensuring that the redress service is not only well intentioned but capable of delivering in practice. The amendments that we are supporting are sensible and necessary.

Mr Carroll made a point about knowing a person who is completing an application form and the issues that have arisen. I raised a similar issue with officials about that. I point out that the application forms are in draft. It is important that we get feedback. That is part of the further engagement and consultation on what does and does not work that I proposed. All those issues could be considered, and the form could be adjusted. It is purely in draft. My feeling is that that could be worked on as part of the next steps.

I concur with the Chairperson's comments about legal support versus support from the community and voluntary sector. Where it is at all possible, redress support should come from the community and voluntary sector. I thank the WAVE Trauma Centre and Adopt NI, which have provided excellent support thus far.

I turn to Ms Ní Chuilín's issues with orders restricting disclosure of information. I want to clarify whether we are on the same page. In that whole business, we are moving towards a presumption of transparency and disclosure. We understand the difficulties that arise in circumstances where public bodies know more about individuals than those individuals know about themselves. That is a difficult circumstance to be in. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding of the clause on orders restricting disclosure of information is that, where information held by the redress service is potentially leaked or misused, there would be a sanction on a person for such behaviour that is in keeping with the sanctions for the abuse or misuse of information in regard to the public inquiry. My understanding is that the clause is less about not disclosing information or the ability to withhold it and more about imposing a sanction on people where they have behaved badly with the information that they have. Does that clarify matters, Ms Ní Chuilín? It would be helpful to understand your point.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I mentioned the Inquiries Act 2005 because there are procedures and standards about the handling of information. That is right on one hand, but the issue is where someone else makes a decision that is not article 2- or article 8-compliant. It is not about someone messing about with information; it is about making sure that there is as much disclosure as possible, if not full disclosure, of those documents to people. The inquiry may get information that those people could not get otherwise. I hope that that clarifies it.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Member for her clarification. We raised that issue with the Health Minister and his officials, as well as the sensitivities and how difficult it is for people to be in that circumstance. In fairness to the officials, they pointed out that, at times, there are valid reasons not to disclose. Other family members may not be aware that somebody had a child in those circumstances. It is not necessarily straightforward, but I take on board the Member's point.

Mr Carroll: Will the junior Minister give way?

Ms Bunting: Yes.

Mr Carroll: I am looking for clarity on amendment No 41 as well.

I take the junior Minister's point about wanting to protect people and not hurt or traumatise them unduly. For clarification, will the amendment apply just to institutions and people from institutions who release information or breach an order, or will it apply to any victims and survivors? What happens in a case in which, in certain specific circumstances, information is released in the public interest? In such circumstances, it would seem unfair to criminalise people. Has that been considered? May I get a response in writing if you are not able to answer that question now?

Ms Bunting: I am afraid that I am not able to give the Member an answer on that at this stage. I do not wish to comment, as I have not been fully briefed and could therefore mislead the Member and, indeed, the House. If he will forgive me, I will not get into that issue now, but we will provide him with an answer in writing, if he is satisfied with that. Is that OK?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Ms Bunting: Thank you very much.

I will conclude by saying that, to our mind, we are taking a balanced and responsible approach that is focused on getting the legislation right. I urge Members to support our position on the group 3 amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes the Consideration Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Thank you, Members, for your participation.

The Speaker has been advised that Keith Buchanan will not be speaking on his Adjournment topic on road conditions in Mid Ulster this evening and will seek to have it rescheduled. That will be a matter for the Business Committee. I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Frew: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow one hour and 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer of the motion has 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr Frew: I have proposed the motion because I feel that it goes to the heart of one of the greatest injustices still facing many innocent victims and survivors across Northern Ireland. For years, the Irish Government have sought to lecture others about legacy, accountability and reconciliation, while refusing to fully cooperate on cases connected to the Republic of Ireland or to establish any meaningful investigative mechanism of their own. That position is totally and utterly indefensible. Victims who lost loved ones to IRA and other republican terrorists deserve answers, regardless of which side of the border the information lies on. Instead, many families have spent decades being met with obstruction, delay and silence from Dublin.

The Irish Government cannot continue to posture as an honest broker on legacy issues whilst maintaining what many victims see as a "decades-long embargo" on truth and accountability. All they do is gaslight the innocent victims of republican terrorists. The Irish Republic's Government selectively obstruct legacy investigations, particularly those involving cross-border IRA activity. Victims' families are denied information and truth that they have sought for years. The Republic's Government act like some honest witness; like a bystander who has witnessed serious crime from afar. That is not the case. They chastise the UK Government's actions, however misguided they are, yet do nothing to put in place and establish separate investigative processes addressing the legacy of the past and their part in it. They have had the neck to apply pressure on a very weak Labour Secretary of State to retain flawed processes and legislation.

I have no doubt that there are many brave people who serve in an Garda Síochána and overseas in the Irish Army, and they have tried their best, as we have here, to quell the flame of terrorist fire. However, it is also true to say that, when terrorists ran — that is what they did; they ran — across that border, they were given safe haven and were able to disappear in the mist, and no one could find them. Even if they were found and arrested, when it came to extradition, the Irish Government played no part in it. They did not allow those terrorists to face justice in a UK court so that their victims could see that justice and have their day in court. That is what the Irish Government did to the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in Britain.

It is therefore really important that the Irish Government make amends for that aspect of their shady past. However, they have not, and they continue to block and obstruct victims and witnesses from the truth and justice. They chastise the UK Government for not going through with legacy, trials or inquiries; yet they do not hold any themselves. If they hold some, it is a sham: a paper exercise on behalf of the Irish Government. That is not good enough for our people.

There is absolutely no reason why parties in the Chamber cannot support the motion. They should fully get behind it to ensure that we in the Assembly send the clear message to Dublin that we have had enough and that innocent victims and their families have had enough. It is right and proper that we apply pressure on the Irish Government, as they have applied pressure on the UK Government, to deliver justice. Let us see whether the Irish Government can deliver justice, given how they decry the UK's system.

It is really difficult for witnesses who are seeking truth and justice to view from afar the actions, or the inaction, of the Dublin Government. What should it be to the Irish Government? Why can the Irish Government not take part? Why can they not fulfil the wishes of the victims when they seek truth? What have the Irish Government got to lose? What have they got to hide? Surely, they want to see the end of Irish republican terrorism and to end that part of their history so that we can all start afresh with a good, clean pair of hands, so why do they have their hands behind their back? Why do they not disclose the evidence and produce the material that they have so that innocent victims can see — and hear and feel — what truth looks like?

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Buckley: Does the Member agree that it was not just British citizens who felt the cold hand of terrorism during the Troubles in Northern Ireland but many Irish citizens, including some who lived in the Republic of Ireland?

Mr Frew: My colleague makes a good point. That is the truth: not only did republican terrorists murder more people of the Catholic faith than did terrorists from any other organisation but they tormented an Garda Síochána and the Irish Army. Let us remember that the IRA did not recognise the Irish state, the Irish Army — the Defence Forces — or an Garda Síochána. It wanted to break down the Irish state just as much as it wanted to destroy Northern Ireland as a state and a part of the United Kingdom. The Irish Government have to be reminded time and again that they therefore should, and can, try to eradicate Irish republican terrorism from their midst and to separate their part in that murky era of our shared history.

I appeal to the Irish Government tonight — I hope that this will be echoed in every part of the Chamber — to disclose every aspect of evidence from their record-keeping and to get that out in the open so that we can see it and, more importantly, victims can see exactly what happened to their loved ones. How and where was that planned? Where did the terrorists go after the atrocity to seek a safe haven? Where were the safe houses that they went to? Where did they lie, undetected, for months, and why did they do so? Why did they not come to the UK on an extradition warrant? Why did they not face justice in a UK court? Why did the victims not see justice? We will not give up asking those pertinent questions. The Irish Government must answer them not for my sake or the Assembly's sake but for the victims who have waited decades — decades — for the truth and who have been gaslighted every day by the Irish Government's treatment of them. They chastise the UK Government, yet, on their own, they do nothing to help victims of the Troubles, who include not only many who see themselves as Irish citizens but those who reside in the Irish Republic.

The Irish Government are not only failing victims in Northern Ireland —

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

Mr Frew: — but failing their own citizens.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Doug, please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Legacy is a running sore in Northern Ireland and further afield. I know that all of us in the Chamber will look at legacy through a different prism, and that is fine. The substance of the motion is similar to that of one that I brought to the Chamber in March of last year about the Dublin Government failing to live up to their responsibilities. That motion received unanimous support. Nothing about that premise has changed. The situation is exactly the same now as I said that it was in March of last year. Today's motion and our amendment, which clarifies a number of points in the motion and makes it a little more coherent, can be broken down into four areas. I hope that I can get through all four. I will try to do so.

The first area, which Mr Frew articulated well, is that the Irish Government have failed to do anything substantial on legacy. They have done nothing for victims, nothing for survivors and nothing for society. They have brought in a legacy unit in an Garda Síochána, but let me be absolutely clear: it will not investigate anything. It will pass information to the UK investigatory bodies, but let us talk about that information: it will be redacted before investigation. It is important to remember that. The UK Government will not redact information before an investigation but will redact it when family reports come out for reasons of national security. That is fine, although Members may argue that they do not like that either. We are, however, literally talking about the Irish Government, the Irish Army, the Directorate of Military Intelligence, an Garda Síochána and the rest of the state security apparatus redacting information before investigation. That is not right, and we know that it is not right.

The Irish Government are not doing investigations. Last week was the anniversary of the kidnap, torture and murder of Robert Nairac GC. He has had no article 2 investigation and no inquest. When I raise that with the Irish Government, they say, "We haven't found a body yet, so we can't do it". That is nonsense, because Irish legislation clearly states that they can hold an investigation and an inquest in cases in which there is no body. Corporal James Elliott was kidnapped, tortured and murdered in 1972, and there has been no article 2 investigation of his murder, even though he was murdered in Ireland. There has been no investigation, yet nobody is screaming and shouting about that. Two people were arrested, but do you know what they were arrested for? They were arrested not for his murder but for planting improvised explosive devices on his body. Nobody has been arrested for his murder.

The Irish Government have supported amnesties. They supported amnesties in the Stormont House Agreement. We all know that the Stormont House Agreement would never have conducted investigations of those who were kidnapped in the UK, taken across the border and tortured and murdered. That was not part of the Stormont House Agreement. Nor would the desktop reviews by the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) have been part of the Stormont House Agreement. If someone had been left limbless, blind, burned and in a wheelchair, the Stormont House Agreement states that they would not have got an investigation. Some may not call that an amnesty, but I call it an amnesty.

I will focus on what the Irish Government said. In 2014, Michael McDowell, who had been the Minister for Justice, made it clear that the Irish Government had made a conscious decision not to investigate actions from the Troubles once the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was agreed. He said again in 2021 that that was the case. The Irish Government therefore clearly admitted that they had given amnesties and would not conduct investigations. When we talk about the Irish Government, we have to remember that the vast majority of attacks along the border and elsewhere came from the sovereign territory of Ireland, with people coming into the UK to murder UK citizens and then going back to Ireland, which they saw as a safe haven.

For the Irish Government to say, "Nothing to do with me, guv" is fundamentally wrong. Nobody should be saying that. Even if you disagree with me and the premise of what I say, you must agree that the Irish Government should live up to their responsibilities on legacy. That is why I believe that the UK Government have a case that could and should lead them to initiating an interstate case against the Irish, who have done absolutely nothing on legacy. We have to agree on that: they have not done anything on legacy.

I have a fundamental problem with the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), not because of the latest report that referred to its management and how it worked. It is looking at something like 300 cases at present, so it is working, but there are problems with it. I remind everybody that the ICRIR was set up in such a way that there would be no prosecutions at the end of it. However, under the Labour Government's Troubles Bill, the ICRIR will become the Legacy Commission. It will transform into that, and it will have prosecutions at the end of it. I fully accept people saying, "I don't like the new legacy Bill", but the ICRIR, which will transform into the Legacy Commission, is working on about 300 cases. I believe that the first report should be out at the end of this month or, certainly, by the middle of next month.

We in the Ulster Unionist Party have been trying to shape the Labour Government's Troubles Bill. We have tabled amendments on the definition of a victim; the addition of sex-related crime as a named harm, which we have debated here and on which there is cross-party support; the disqualification of anyone with terrorist affiliations from sitting on the victims and survivors advisory group or any other legacy body; and the need to make sure that acts that were lawfully performed by members of the armed forces will not be deemed as unlawful. That is how we are trying to shape the Bill. To everybody who says, "Let's get rid of Labour's legacy Bill", my question is, "What would you replace it with right now?". At the end of the day, we might say, "Let's get rid of it", but, at this moment, we are trying to shape it in order to make it workable. If it is not workable, I will be happy to join the chorus and say, "I'm not going to support that". However, we are not there at this moment.

Other parts of the Bill are a little more contentious, such as the protections for military veterans. There are a number of protections in the Bill for military veterans, but let us be absolutely clear that the Government have lied about those. The protections are not just for military veterans; they are for everybody. There will be protections for terrorists in the same way as there will be protections for veterans. For me, that creates an equivalence that I cannot live with, and that is why we are aiming to change it. That is an important point for us to really drive home. It is hard to explain it to people, but the bottom line is that soldiers will have made mistakes — I absolutely accept that — but will have thought that they were acting in the right way when they made mistakes. There will be soldiers who made mistakes and knew that they were making mistakes and that they were doing wrong: if they did so, it is absolutely right that they should be pursued through the courts and the justice system.

I will finish on the Dillon finding, which, I think, was raised as a Matter of the Day. We certainly debated it, and I do not want to go over old ground. However, I have a genuine concern that both the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission took a partisan view on the Dillon lawsuit, and that goes outside of what they were set up to do. To that end — you may or may not support me on this — it is worth having a review of both organisations.

Where do we come to at the end of what I have talked about? It is this simple: we need to make sure that we have a mechanism that can be supported by the majority of victims, the majority of survivors and most of society.

It will not get everybody's support; that is just a fact. Therefore, we have to make it as good as we possibly can. However, the one thing that we can all stand up and agree on, no matter what corner of the House we stand in, is that the Irish Government have not lived up to their responsibilities. They have not done their duty. We need the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to call on them to start acting on legacy, because they have not been doing so.

Mrs Dillon: Neither the motion nor the amendment is about victims. They are not about truth, and they are certainly not about reconciliation. They are yet another attempt to shield the British state from accountability for its actions during the conflict. The DUP and the UUP have spoken today about cooperation, but they ignore the fundamental reality that the ICRIR was rejected because families and victims felt that it was not compliant with articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, let us be honest: we know the DUP's view on the European Convention on Human Rights. That is not simply a Republican argument; that position has been advanced by victims' groups, human rights organisations, international legal experts and the Irish Government. There is absolutely no confidence in the process among the overwhelming majority of victims and survivors. You talked about the majority of victims and survivors: is that only those whom you want to listen to, or is it them all? The Irish Government backs them.

Mr Beattie: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dillon: No, I will not.

Not one credible victims' organisation asked for the legislation; not one family that has spent decades searching for the truth demanded immunity provisions.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mrs Dillon: Absolutely.

Ms Sheerin: Does the Member agree with me that one such family is the family of Sean Brown, who was murdered in our constituency almost 30 years ago? That family has had to fight for justice ever since.

Mrs Dillon: Absolutely.

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

Mrs Dillon: Not one campaigner has said that the legislation represents justice. The British Government imposed the legislation over the heads of victims and survivors, because the primary objective was never reconciliation, truth or justice; it was protection. When the Members opposite talk about protections for former soldiers and an end to vexatious investigations, people know exactly what they mean: protection. Why do they need protection? They need to be protected from the law and the courts. You are the people who wax lyrical about abiding by the law; well, the law is there for everybody, and I do not see why you do not think that you, too, are answerable to it. They mean shutting down avenues to the truth, preventing accountability and drawing a line under state wrongdoing.

We know that many investigations into actions — not mistakes — involving the military and state agencies during the conflict were deeply flawed at best and corrupt cover-ups at worst. Families have spent decades exposing collusion, destroyed evidence, withheld intelligence, corruption and systemic obstruction. Just look at the experiences of Sean Brown's family and other families. Again and again, it was not the state that delivered the truth willingly; it was families having to fight for decades against obstruction and denial to uncover the truth, and many continue to do so.

There already was an agreed mechanism to deal with legacy: it was called the Stormont House Agreement, and the Irish Government were part of it. That was an agreement negotiated between parties and Governments and supported by the vast majority of victims and their spokespersons. However, once again, when progress towards genuine accountability emerged, it was blocked by the British Government and not brought to the floor of Westminster, despite their promising to do so time and time again. People know why. It is because they fear the truth of history. It is about preserving a narrative in which the British state presents itself as some kind of neutral actor, while suppressing the reality of collusion, shoot to kill, state violence and the arming of loyalist paramilitaries.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dillon: No.

The British Government have never fully acknowledged their role in creating and sustaining the conditions for conflict in this part of Ireland. There has never been a meaningful apology for decades of discrimination, repression and state violence against the nationalist and republican community. While the Members opposite speak about victims, many families still wait for answers about collusion between British state agencies and loyalist paramilitary organisations. What do you know about the importation of weapons that were used to murder innocent people? What do you know about the role of Ulster Resistance, the armed wing of the DUP that was established by Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson? What do Peter Robinson, Jim Allister, Gregory Campbell, Sammy Wilson and other unionist grandees know about the importation of weapons from apartheid South Africa that ended up in the hands of loyalist paramilitaries across this island? Those weapons were used to murder people such as Kathleen O'Hagan, who was shot dead in her bedroom when she was seven months pregnant, while her baby son lay in a cot beside her and her other four sons were in the bedroom next door. Of those sons, three have passed away.

The truth is that this northern state was built upon institutional discrimination and maintained through extraordinarily repressive power for decades. Where is the apology from the UUP for 50 years of one-party sectarian rule? You shaped it all right: you shaped this place. You shaped it into something else, I can tell you. Where is the acknowledgement of discrimination against our people? Where is the recognition that nationalists were treated as second-class citizens and murdered on the streets and in their own homes?

One of the clearest examples of that system was the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act 1922 — one of the most notorious emergency laws anywhere in Europe at the time. Under that Act, people could be interned without trial; homes could be searched without a warrant; meetings and publications were banned; citizens could be arrested on suspicion alone; and corporal punishment was permitted. Those powers were used overwhelmingly against the nationalist and republican community. It was a central instrument of repression within the northern state.

A Member: What about the Irish Republic?

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dillon: You should remember that legislation. B J Vorster, Minister of Justice in apartheid South Africa — I think that you have referred to him, sometimes, Mr Deputy Speaker — declared that he would exchange all of South Africa's security laws:

An apartheid Minister looked here with envy. That tells you all you need to know about —

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

Mrs Dillon: — what we are dealing with. Thank you.

Mr Tennyson: Mr Beattie said that we would all look at this issue through different prisms. There is only one prism that any Member should be viewing this issue through: the prism of victims and survivors. One of the most profound failures in our politics has been the failure to deliver a comprehensive legacy process for victims and survivors, but what is much more shameful than that is the never-ending willingness of politicians to weaponise the pain and trauma of those victims in a bid to score political points and engage in whataboutery in the Chamber. It is nothing short of disgraceful. The victims who will be watching the debate deserve so much better than that, and they have deserved better for the past three decades whilst waiting for answers.

The motion references the ICRIR. That is a body that was created through heinous legislation by the previous Conservative Government. It was rejected by not only the Irish Government but every party in the Chamber, the majority of victims and survivors and, indeed, the current UK Government, who acknowledged that it was not fit for purpose. That legislation was not about reconciliation. It was a free pass for loyalist and republican paramilitaries, retrospectively legalising their activities through what, in effect, was an amnesty scheme. It is therefore right that the UK and Irish Governments have agreed a joint framework seeking to significantly reform that process. To characterise this campaign as simply a crusade from Dublin is a calculated and callous insult against all of those victims and survivors who have campaigned with such dignity for a human rights-compliant and comprehensive legacy process. I ask the sponsors of the motion to reflect on that.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. There are many strands of our troubled past, and there are many people who need to be held to account. This motion focused on the role of the Irish Government; to date, they have been found wanting.

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

Mr Tennyson: I agree that both Governments have been found wanting. It is important that we hold both Governments to account. Some victims have called for the Irish Government to go further. However, the motion does not acknowledge any of the progress or cooperation with successive inquiries and inquests over recent years. It also ignores the fact that there have been four extraditions from the Republic on terrorist-related offences in the past year alone. We have to deal in facts when we are holding both Governments to account. One-sided and selective approaches to legacy do not work and do not move the debate forward, yet this motion again peddles a false narrative of witch-hunts and vexatious investigations — claims that collapse under even the most basic scrutiny and are contradicted by every shred of evidence that we have.

More than 300,000 members of the armed forces were deployed to Northern Ireland during Operation Banner. Fewer than two dozen have faced judicial proceedings. The vast majority served honourably and within the law, so they should have nothing to fear from a comprehensive legacy process. They do not need immunity or special protection, and suggesting otherwise plays right into the hands of those who wish to say that there is a whiff of cover-up and to rewrite history. Again, Members should reflect on that.

We have to be honest: not every member of the security services acted within the law. Where the law was broken, where someone was murdered and where a victim was created, it does not matter whether the perpetrator was in uniform or not. That victim and that family deserve the same justice and accountability as if their loved one was murdered by any other perpetrator in our society. It is about equality before the law. I think particularly of the families affected by the Ballymurphy massacre and Bloody Sunday, where there was wrongdoing by members of the armed forces. We need to be honest about that.

We are now in the last-chance saloon on legacy. The suggestion in the motion that we throw the joint framework out the window would not deliver truth and justice. It would scupper the last chance that these families have, and that is absolutely disgraceful and not something that I can support. However, I will support working through Westminster to amend and strengthen the current legacy Bill, because I accept that it is not perfect and needs to be improved.

The amendment before us does not sufficiently address the issues in the motion, because one of the low points in the past number of years, as we have debated these issues, was the interstate case that was brought by the Irish Government against the UK Government. They have the right to do that. I understand why that case was brought, but it will be a mark of progress if, through the joint framework, that case can be taken off the table rather than, as the Ulster Unionist Party has suggested in its amendment, us throwing another grenade on to the table and have a tit for tat of interstate cases between the UK and Ireland. We need both Governments on the same page and focused not on politicking, whataboutery and poking old wounds but on delivering the answers that many families have been campaigning for for half a century. That should be our priority, not this nonsense.

Mr McGlone: I welcome the opportunity to set out the SDLP's position on addressing the legacy of the past. Our position will not be a surprise to anyone, as we are among the few who have been consistent throughout the decades when dealing with past. We do not support the motion. It is important that we put on record that those who continue to perpetuate the myth that any one group of actors from the Troubles is being disproportionately pursued do a grave disservice to the rule of law. They are propagating falsehoods that hinder society's ability to uncover truth, deliver justice and, ultimately, achieve reconciliation.

Since 2012, there have been just 25 prosecutions for Troubles-related offences. Of those, more than half concerned paramilitary actors, while fewer than a quarter involved MOD personnel. Those seeking to wreck the Troubles Bill — we have heard them over in Westminster — are not acting out of any honour-bound duty to the security service; their aim, by consequence, is to suppress truth, conceal evidence of collusion and distort the historical narrative. History will acknowledge that this was a dirty war in which loyalist and republican paramilitaries were involved but also, at times, actors of the state.

We know how agents such as Freddie Scappaticci and Brian Nelson were handled. We know of the actions of the British paratroopers on the streets of Derry, Ballymurphy and the Shankill Road. I am under no illusion that it suits both state and non-state actors to obscure the truth, evade accountability and bend the rule of law. Indeed, what we witnessed in Dunmurry a few weeks ago was a manifestation of the continued glorification of past violence. At this point, the quote attributed to Albert Einstein is very appropriate: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By contrast, memorialisation carries responsibility and demands recognition of wrongdoing, acknowledgement of injustice and, where appropriate, an apology.

In Dunmurry and Lurgan, public servants in the PSNI, along with residents and businesses, were attacked by organised criminals. Their vision offers nothing to the people of Ireland — no prosperity or better future — only destruction, fear and hopelessness, and certainly not unity of the people of Ireland.

Let me be absolutely clear: violence was never inevitable. Those who directed it made a choice. Violence is not inevitable today, either. Those who engage in it now also make a choice. The people of Ireland rejected violence throughout the Troubles, just as they reject it now. One issue will determine our success in addressing the legacy of the past: disclosure. Security institutions must accept that collusion is, in itself, a crime; one that demands accountability. National security vetoes cannot be used to conceal evidence of collusion or double standards. The absence of full disclosure has long failed victims and their families; families like that of Sean Brown and those of the disappeared.

On Sunday, I attended the launch of a book on the investigation into the murder of Sean Brown. Among 25 people who were involved in the murder, a number were agents of the state. He was an innocent man. Victims, and society as a whole, deserve the full and unvarnished truth. Anything less leaves only half-truths, revisionism, continued pain and justice denied. It is equally important that disclosure sheds light on how non-state actors operated with impunity and how, for many, the direction of violence was not about political ideals but about power, control, personal gain and dominance over the very communities that they claimed to defend.

The dirty war that was waged by all sides must be brought fully into the light. Too often, the reality is not one of noble causes or heroic acts but of brutality, sexual violence that was hidden behind kangaroo courts, women being intimidated for rebuilding their lives, children being abused by those wielding unchecked power, communities being driven out and thousands of people being forced to leave the North simply to live in peace.

We must also ensure that independence is the foundation of any legacy commission or information recovery body. For decades, London, Dublin and republican and loyalist organisations have sought to shape legacy processes and control narratives, often because they had the most to lose. Addressing the legacy of the past extends beyond legislation in London or Dublin: it shapes our politics, our community relations, our policing and the capacity of our devolved institutions to deliver for the future. We cannot afford another missed opportunity.

Mr Wilson: As a representative of a border constituency that was absolutely ravaged by ruthless IRA terrorism, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The issue exposes the gross injustice and blatant hypocrisy of the Irish state's approach to legacy. Victims cannot be expected to accept a system where information flows in only one direction and where key evidence and, in some cases, key witnesses remain beyond reach.

The scandal of the Irish Government's approach to legacy in recent years is truly sickening. Their track record is no cause for hope for innocent victims. Many of my constituents bear the scars of decades of terrorism that was waged by the IRA as it operated with impunity on both sides of the border. I want to take a few moments to highlight some important examples of atrocities that deserve the attention and transparency of the Irish Government. The first is the murder of Lord Justice Maurice Gibson and Lady Gibson at Killean. As they travelled home from a holiday, their car was ripped apart by an IRA bomb after they had been given a garda escort to the border. The second is the cowardly murders of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan in 1989 as they crossed the border into Northern Ireland, crucially after meeting in Dundalk garda station. That was confirmed by the Smithwick tribunal to be the result of garda collusion. The third is the Kingsmills massacre, which was one of the darkest days of the Troubles. Ten innocent men were gunned down in cold blood for the crime of being Protestant. We cannot forget that the coroner criticised the reluctance on the part of the Irish state to acknowledge the role of the border in the Kingsmills atrocity, noting that it was, at least in part, organised in the Republic of Ireland. Sadly —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He mentions Kingsmills. Today, we have been lectured by Sinn Féin about those parties that need to demonstrate accountability. Does he agree that there was no such accountability from Sinn Féin when it refused to cooperate with, and respond to, the very inquiry into Kingsmills?

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

Mr Wilson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I indeed agree with the Member. It is a shame that Members from the other side of the House refuse to give way to have their points of view challenged. Anyway, I will proceed.

Only last Sunday, I stood with families of innocent victims in Armagh cathedral, where a poignant tapestry, representing the burden borne by women throughout the Troubles, was unveiled. Those women had to keep going, keep strong and keep focused for their families, relentlessly persevering, despite the loss of a husband, a father, a brother or a grandfather to IRA atrocities. Moreover, given that lived reality, the fact that the Government in the Republic of Ireland continue to fail to live up to agreements is nothing short of shameful. Fresh from my experience with innocent victims in Armagh city on Sunday, I say this to the party opposite: desist from your yearly glorification events and desist from heaping grief and re-traumatisation on the innocent victims of IRA terrorism. It has to stop.

In closing, if the Dublin authorities claim to respect the rule of law and the human rights of victims, it follows that they should act of their own accord to investigate the state's role in the IRA campaign. There needs to be a full and comprehensive public inquiry into gardaí collusion in the Irish Republic. It is a travesty when one considers that, between 1973 and 1997, out of 113 extradition requests made to Dublin, only eight people were extradited for terrorist-related offences. That contrasts sharply with non-terror extradition requests, for which, in the same period, out of 296 requests, 124 extraditions took place. That clearly shows a blatant disregard for justice for victims of terrorism. It remains deeply unacceptable that Dublin continues to sweep its role under the carpet. Victims and survivors deserve better. That is why we felt compelled to table the motion. I encourage all Members here today to back it.

Mr Kelly: First, the Irish Government have not cooperated with the ICRIR because it is not article 2-compliant, as former Irish Government Justice Minister Helen McEntee outlined. Secondly, following the 2023 Tory legacy legislation, there was no reciprocal agreement with the Irish Government on legacy matters such as information sharing and providing evidence. Concerning separate investigative processes in the South, Sinn Féin will shortly produce proposals, with a view to establishing a type of Historical Investigations Unit (HIU) mechanism, which Members may remember from the Stormont House Agreement, to conduct independent investigations in the South.

We fully agree that the current legacy Bill has lost the confidence of victims and survivors. Recently, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence heavily criticised the Bill for its retention of an expansive national security veto; a lack of institutional independence; restrictions on access to investigations; a lack of victim participation; a flawed inquisitorial mechanism, which, incidentally, was to replace already existing inquests; and the absence of a thematic or systematic truth mechanism to deal with themes and patterns of abuse.

At the meetings that we have had with the Irish Government, we have stressed the need to retain the interstate case in Europe against the existing legacy legislation. Their position has been made clear on a number of occasions, which is that they will wait until the Labour Party's Troubles Bill is finally passed before they make a judgement on whether to pursue that legal challenge in Europe. That is especially important in light of Hilary Benn's stated intention to introduce further legal protections for veterans at the Bill's Committee Stage.

With reference to the Dillon case, like the majority of families, we are both disappointed by and dismayed at the recent Supreme Court judgement. Some of the families' legal representatives have also indicated that they intend to bring a legal challenge to Europe.

There is no need to develop fresh legacy proposals, as we already have a template that the main parties, including the DUP across the way, and both Governments endorsed in 2014.

Subsequently, it was widely endorsed in an NIO consultation in 2018. However, the British Government refused to implement and legislate for the agreement, despite agreeing to do so within 50 years in the New Decade, New Approach agreement between the Irish Government and the British Government in January 2020. Instead, the Tories decided to do a solo run and introduced a disastrous Legacy Bill in 2023.

Dealing with our past has developed into a battle of narratives that we can see here today. All narratives need to be listened to and treated with respect, although we do not necessarily have to agree with all or even any of them. The British Government and political unionism would have us believe that there is only one legitimate narrative, and that is the state narrative of right against wrong and the nationalist/republican community being put down as a terrorist community, harbouring and supporting terrorists. They do not reference their role in establishing partition, the Orange state, structural discrimination, gerrymandering, repression or the Special Powers Act. I could go on and on.

Political unionism was the first to introduce the gun into Irish politics in the 20th century, with the formation of the UVF in 1912-13. It then deployed its legal forces with the establishment of the RUC and the A- and B-Specials, followed by the UDR. Its latest illegal army is the Ulster Resistance, even though it does not want to admit it. It was established —

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kelly: No, I will not give way. It was established by the DUP, and it retains its weapons, as it has not entered into any decommissioning process or the current transition process for paramilitaries.

Mrs Dodds: The debate has thrown up some interesting issues. I will start by saying that I will unapologetically talk about innocent victims of terrorism. I agreed with Patsy McGlone when he said that innocent victims of terrorism, no matter where they are from, demand truth and justice. However, innocent victims of terrorism also demand something more from politicians in the House. They need and should have people in the Chamber who will not stand for the rewriting of history and are prepared to challenge a narrative that wants us all to move on and to allow the eulogising of terrorist criminals and accept it as part of the so-called peace process.

There have been some interesting contributions from politicians on the issue in recent days, particularly from Sinn Féin's new-found friends in the SNP in Scotland. The First Minister, John Swinney, told innocent victims in Northern Ireland and in Scotland that we must all move on from linking Sinn Féin to terrorism. Of course, the problem for Mr Swinney and that idiotic statement is that Sinn Féin continues to eulogise the terrorist criminals who caused so much carnage and harm in Northern Ireland. I listened last night to Baroness Foster in the House of Lords. She said:

I was talking today to organisers from the South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF), which is a victims and survivors organisation. They will protest tomorrow, along with political parties in Scotland, and join like-minded politicians who will stand up against terrorism and against those who caused so much carnage in Northern Ireland and beyond. I am glad that questions are now being asked of John Swinney and the SNP. Many of the questions are being put forward by the campaign surrounding the three Scottish soldiers who were murdered and left in Ligoniel. We have been at many remembrance services for those Scottish soldiers.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: I will indeed.

Mr Kingston: I regret that the Sinn Féin Member for North Belfast would not give way to me. I attended a service with members of the McCaig family on Sunday, and the family of the two McCaig brothers and the family of Dougald McCaughey are entitled to the truth.

I believe that the Member for North Belfast has information about who was responsible for their murder. They were taken, unarmed and off duty, and murdered by being shot at close range. He should bring forward information, if he has knowledge of which —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Kingston.

Mr Kingston: — IRA members were responsible —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Kingston.

Mr Kingston: — for those appalling murders.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Kingston, you are meant to make a short intervention. Should you wish to make a speech, there is still room for you to be put on the list.

Mrs Dodds, you have an extra minute.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Member is absolutely right. We have attended many commemorations of what happened to those soldiers. They have had no justice. Is the Scottish First Minister asking questions of Sinn Féin about justice for those three Scottish soldiers? Does the Scottish First Minister agree with Michelle O'Neill that there was no alternative to the violence of the IRA? The SNP should distance itself from the glorification of terrorist criminals that Sinn Féin and the First Minister regularly engage in.

It is time that the United Kingdom had stronger laws to deal with hate marches in London and those who continue to glorify the murder and mayhem carried out by terrorist criminals. You cannot claim to be the "First Minister for all" but eulogise those who murdered and maimed in our community. There was always an alternative to murdering your neighbours.

Of course, the motion is also about the Republic of Ireland and its failure to cooperate and give justice and information to those who were the subject of collusion or to the victims of a murderous campaign that the IRA launched from that state's territory. It will be no surprise to anyone in the Chamber that, today, in remembering those victims of violence, I will talk about Ian Sproule, a young Protestant who was shot outside his home in the village of Killen. Allegations of collusion have never been investigated. I have gone with John Sproule to Dublin and met politicians there, and they refuse to investigate and uncover the truth. It is shameful.

Bobby Keys was murdered 53 years ago in an attack on a police station in Belleek. An estimated six to nine gunmen took part in that attack, and the rocket was launched from the Republic of Ireland. There has been no justice for his wife and six children. Of course, on 16 June, it will be 40 years since Terence McKeever, a Dublin-based businessman, was shot and his body dumped by the IRA, because he carried out electrical contracting work for the security forces in south Armagh. There has been no justice for Terence McKeever or his family. It is shameful indeed.

Mr Gaston: The Dublin Government love to talk about truth, accountability and legacy. They even have a case before the European Court of Justice. However, let us have the full truth: the explosives that devastated towns across Northern Ireland did not simply appear; large quantities of commercial explosives that were manufactured in the Republic of Ireland repeatedly found their way into the hands of the IRA. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented fact in Irish Government files.

The booklet, 'Newry and a Border between "Truth & Justice"' references the discovery in Newry in 1976 of two and a half tons of explosives, including commercial explosives that were manufactured by Irish Industrial Explosives Ltd in County Meath. The army stated that there was enough explosive material to make 60 car bombs. That was not an isolated issue. Before the importation of Semtex, through the worst days of the Troubles, IRA bombs repeatedly used Irish industrial explosives. Hundreds died, and thousands were injured, Mr Kelly, by explosives from the Irish Republic. The Irish Government knew that they were being used and did nothing to stop it. Even when the IRA moved away from using Irish Industrial Explosives material, the bomb that was deployed in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday was built in the safety of the Irish Republic.

On the day of that bombing, another bomb was planted in Tullyhommon, targeting a local Boys' and Girls' Brigade parade. Thankfully, it failed to go off. The command wire for that bomb went across the border. No one ever stood before a court charged with an offence in either case. There are multiple examples of times when the IRA murdered innocent people and then scurried across the border to safety. Once there, they cited the constitution of the Irish Republic in order to escape justice.

I will read into the record the last section of a letter from Tom Travers, which was published in 'The Irish Times' in April 1994:

It is time that the Irish Government were held accountable for being an active participant —

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

Mr Gaston: — in aiding and abetting IRA murder in Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Robbie, you have five minutes.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sometimes, when we debate in here, our motions can be pulled apart. This is one occasion when the motion has been misrepresented by my MLA colleagues on the other side of the House. What was the purpose of tabling the motion? It was not to attribute blame or to retell or rewrite who did it worst or who did it best. It was about demanding more of the Irish Government, because it is very, very clear to anyone who is looking on that the Irish Government have not been in step.

I am not going to make an excuse on behalf of the UK Government, because they have previously got it wrong. I am not going to make any excuses for anybody who wilfully acted outside the law. Everyone whom I have worked with in the Chamber says that they want justice and truth, and that they do not want to equate victims with those who perpetrated violence. Well, on the last one, it is most of us, maybe not all. What I did not hear anyone on the opposite Benches pick out from the motion or the amendment was the second piece, which was:

I think that you deliberately did not speak about that part, because it is absolutely indefensible.

Some excellent points were made during the debate. I do not want to pick out too many victims' names because some of the cases are incredibly sad, but I do not like to go beyond trying to get people to understand that those who served did so without fear or favour. I was a prison officer for a number of years: 32 of my colleagues in Northern Ireland were murdered. Brian Stack was a prison officer from the Republic of Ireland who was murdered by the Provisional IRA. There has been no justice and no truth. The Irish Government need to step up to the plate and walk in parallel with the UK Government, which is what we should do. Anyone who has information or access to the truth should tell that story. It was a dirty war. Many people suffered and lived in fear. However, what has happened since 1998?

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with much of what he has said so far, but does he recognise that there is a commitment from the Irish Government in the joint framework to investigate all unresolved Troubles incidents? It is so important that we hold them to that framework.

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

Mr Butler: Thank you.

I wrote to Justice Minister McEntee a number of years ago, when I held the role of my party's deputy leader and Chief Whip. I was not satisfied with her answer. The Irish Government play with words. To this point, there has not been any discernible action on what happened.

The Member for North Antrim talked about the Enniskillen bomb. We want to talk about the Omagh bomb. I also want to talk about what will happen if we do not address this issue. Our respective Governments need to step up and set the pace, but, sadly, the Irish Government are lacking in that regard. What has happened since 1998? Two more prison officers have been murdered: Davy Black and Adrian Ismay. That is not to mention the PSNI officers who have also been murdered. Officers are still under threat. If we do not address the past honestly, with full disclosure, we will, unfortunately, arm the terrorists of the future, because we will legitimatise what they do. We need to get to the point of truth, and those who need to lead the way are the British Government and the Irish Government. The parties that will not support the motion or the amendment are basically saying that we have a two-tier system that allows the Irish Government to drag their heels when it comes to the information that they have and, in some instances, the collusion involving an Garda Síochána. I am delighted that Mr Wilson shared his experience of what it was like to live on the border. There were decades of terrorism. It was not something new. The experience of those who lived on the border was very different from that of those who lived in towns.

I hope that Members will reflect on the fact that this is not a gotcha moment; this is about asking for the Irish Government to step up to the plate, deliver what we would demand of our own Government in London and bring closure to victims who have suffered.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Jonny Buckley to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Jonny, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The DUP motion before us today confronts a shameful truth that victims have often carried for too long by themselves. It is a truth that the Irish Government have refused to face, acknowledge and act on. We in the Chamber should be in no doubt: the blame for thousands of lives destroyed during the Troubles rests squarely with the terrorists — those who planted bombs, pulled triggers and left families shattered. They are celebrated and applauded to this day by many Members on the Benches opposite.

Today, however, our focus is on something different: the Irish Government's decades-long refusal to confront their failures, responsibilities and role in the suffering of innocent people in Northern Ireland. Victims have been ignored, and trauma has been prolonged.

Sinn Féin could paper the walls of the Chamber with its many comments about targeting the British state and the security forces and celebrating cowardly terrorist colleagues. However, it has not proposed a single motion calling for action from the Republic of Ireland's Government.

I suppose that we should not be shocked by that, given its history. Gerry Kelly MLA sits in the Chamber right now. How many nights did he spend on the run in the Republic of Ireland? He is perhaps the only Member of this elected body who actively participated in shooting a member of the Prison Service in the head, yet we are subjected to lectures that we all have got this badly wrong.

For decades, victims have wanted the truth. They have waited for justice, and they have waited for even the smallest sign of compassion from Dublin. Instead, they have been met with silence, with obstruction and with a cold, calculated refusal to cooperate. That is not an administrative delay; it is a political decision, one that deepens and prolongs wounds and trauma. There are many reasons why that is a scandalous position.

Eóin Tennyson of the Alliance Party has rubbished the motion. He has rubbished this aspect of legacy and walked over the rights and the experiences of the many victims who are still calling for the truth. Let me remind him why it is important to debate this today. A word was spoken that had not been spoken until the previous Member who spoke said it. Let us remember Omagh, the single worst atrocity of the Troubles, with a bomb planned and constructed in and transported from the Republic of Ireland. Four years ago, the courts called for a public inquiry into the Irish state's role. Four years, and Dublin has done absolutely nothing. No inquiry, no transparency and no willingness to open the books. Victims' families are left to wonder what is being hidden. Why the silence? Let us remember Kingsmills, where 10 innocent workmen were lined up and executed in cold blood. Why? Because of their religion. Irish intelligence had given information about IRA activity in the area. It had knowledge of explosives being manufactured in its jurisdiction, yet nothing was done to prevent their slaughter. The families of Kingsmills — I count Alan Black a personal friend — have waited nearly 50 years for answers. Dublin has offered nothing.

We must also speak of the two brave RUC officers, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, who were lured to their death in the Irish Republic. The Smithwick tribunal, after years of evidence, concluded that there was collusion; that sensitive information was passed to the Provisional IRA; and that those officers were set up. Smithwick should have been the start of a full reckoning. Instead, what did we find? Dublin treated it as an inconvenience to be buried. Recommendation 7, which called for further investigation, was ignored. The families of Breen and Buchanan have been left with unanswered questions and unhealed wounds. Throughout the Troubles, terrorists crossed the border after committing murder —.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment if I have time.

Throughout the Troubles, terrorists crossed the border after committing murder and found refuge. Bomb factories operated in the Republic, explosives were transported north and warnings were ignored. It has been mentioned on several occasions that recent information shows that a company in the Republic, Irish Industrial Explosives Ltd in County Meath, was an explosives bonanza for republican terrorists. Despite repeated warnings from the British state about the level of explosives that were being found on traces of bombs across our country, what did the Irish Government do? They sent their Ministers to laud and to promote that very company, yet there was further silence. The Irish state was not a passive observer; it had responsibilities that it failed to meet.

In a display of staggering hypocrisy, however, the Irish Government have taken the UK Government to court over legacy matters. That could not be further from the truth. They have kept their interstate case alive. They have applied political pressure on the Secretary of State. They have demanded changes to UK legislation that go way beyond those required by even the Supreme Court, all whilst refusing to meet their own obligations, refusing to hand over documents, refusing to cooperate with the ICRIR and refusing to investigate their own failures. That is not moral leadership. It is political theatre at the expense of victims.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree that there should be robust cooperation between the Irish Government and the UK Government, but will the Member explain how throwing out the joint framework — the first agreement between the two Governments in over a decade — would achieve that?

Mr Buckley: I will come on to that point. If the Member recognises the truth in the motion, however, I urge Alliance to support it.

Much has been said about the UK's article 2 obligations, but almost nothing has been said about the Irish Government's obligations under the same provision. European case law is clear: if a state harbours an alleged perpetrator or holds relevant evidence, it must investigate. If a victim was under the authority or control of another state, it must investigate. By any reasonable measure, Dublin has been in breach of its article 2 obligations for decades. Between 1973 and 1997, the UK made 113 extradition requests to the Republic for terrorist offences. Only eight were granted. For non-terrorist offences, 296 requests were made, of which 124 were granted. When it came to terrorists, the door was bolted. When it came to ordinary criminals, the door swung open. What message did that send to the families of victims such as Buchanan and Breen? What message did it give to the Provisional IRA? To continue to operate with impunity?

Let us be honest: the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has lost the confidence of victims, survivors and veterans. It has lost the confidence of this community, and it has lost the confidence of this House. I say to the UK Government that it should be withdrawn: not amended but withdrawn. I say this to the UK Government: grow a backbone, get off your knees and stand up for your citizens. There should be no preconditions for the Irish Government doing what is morally and legally required. There should be no preconditions for handing over documents, cooperating, investigating collusion or opening the books on Omagh, Kingsmills and multiple other murders.

Victims deserve truth.

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

Mr Buckley: It is time that the Irish Government delivered.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As Members were informed earlier, Keith Buchanan will not be speaking to his Adjournment topic this evening on road conditions in Mid Ulster.