Carál Ní Chuilín
North Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“To continue the theme of undermining public confidence and public effectiveness, I ask you this, Minister: why do you and your DUP colleagues continue to block the 'good jobs' Bill, particularly the measures for parents whose babies require neonatal care and, indeed, other measures that will support workers who are struggling with the cos…”
“At the end of the day, guns were used to kill Catholics — Davy Payne; surface-to-air missiles in South Africa and Paris and then some. I will give the deputy First Minister another opportunity not to deflect but to condemn her party's involvement in Ulster Resistance and with the red berets that they wore.”
“I thank the Minister for that response. I have a close family relative who is in need of a SPiMS unit in an Irish-medium school but cannot access one in North Belfast at all. Apart from access in P4 and P5, they will have to go to an English-speaking school, even though Irish is their first language.”
“You mentioned some of the issues that are important: trade union representation, the banning of zero-hours contracts and employees being able to have their tips and service charges. Anyone who cannot get behind these proposals needs to be clear — concerns for some, and hiding behind the industry for others.”
“First Minister, I know that, recently, you were in Ardoyne for the sod cutting of the new £3·4 million purpose-built youth facility for Ardoyne Youth Enterprise. Further to your response to Brian Kingston, can you give us an update on that project and, indeed, any others?”
“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 complete record
Every one of 2,734 lines we hold for Carál Ní Chuilín, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 55.
“At the end of the day, guns were used to kill Catholics — Davy Payne; surface-to-air missiles in South Africa and Paris and then some. I will give the deputy First Minister another opportunity not to deflect but to condemn her party's involvement in Ulster Resistance and with the red berets that they wore.”
“I have not let myself down at all. My remarks were to the rest of your party”
“To continue the theme of undermining public confidence and public effectiveness, I ask you this, Minister: why do you and your DUP colleagues continue to block the 'good jobs' Bill, particularly the measures for parents whose babies require neonatal care and, indeed, other measures that will support workers who are struggling with the cost of living?”
“I thank the Minister for that response. I have a close family relative who is in need of a SPiMS unit in an Irish-medium school but cannot access one in North Belfast at all. Apart from access in P4 and P5, they will have to go to an English-speaking school, even though Irish is their first language. Will the Minister look at that growing inequality? I am absolutely sure that he would not be content with children who have Irish as their first language being discriminated against, particularly those with a statement of special educational needs.”
“You mentioned some of the issues that are important: trade union representation, the banning of zero-hours contracts and employees being able to have their tips and service charges. Anyone who cannot get behind these proposals needs to be clear — concerns for some, and hiding behind the industry for others. If this is not supported, it will ensure that women's rights and other workers' rights in the workforce are not respected or, indeed, protected. Does the First Minister agree that it is essential to introduce the 'good jobs' Bill at the earliest opportunity?”
“First Minister, for that response. Stronger workers' rights are essential.”
“First Minister, I know that, recently, you were in Ardoyne for the sod cutting of the new £3·4 million purpose-built youth facility for Ardoyne Youth Enterprise. Further to your response to Brian Kingston, can you give us an update on that project and, indeed, any others?”
“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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />Clause 40 relates to orders to restrict disclosure of information. We want to make sure that there are clear explanations.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />I genuinely look forward to hearing what Gerry has to say.”
“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.”
“Yet again, TEO is stepping in to ensure that those people's records are accessed.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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". <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“The other payments that will come later will certainly reflect the awful trauma that they experienced. <BR /> <BR />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 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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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:”
“Can you talk about the only Member for North Belfast who has worked on the Bill from the start? Phillip came later. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“Can we distinguish between us? There are two Members for North Belfast.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. In the same multi-agency approach, I have met the police, social workers and all the rest to try to support women in particular at this stage. I welcome the review, but, at the moment, a woman who flees her home with her babies in her arms gets the same 20 points as someone who has listened to a row in the next-door flat. I am sure that the Minister agrees that that is not fair and needs to be looked at with urgency.”
“Deputy First Minister, we have witnessed racism and sectarian attacks, whether they have been in Derry, north Belfast, Larne or Ballymena. Can you, as deputy First Minister, ensure that a refreshed approach to race relations will be effective in building a society free from racism, sectarianism and, indeed, xenophobia?”
“<BR /> <BR />I appeal to the SDLP in particular to join the rest of us. I assume that everybody else will support the call to reinstate the funding as it was, because the current configuration does not work. It is quite cruel, actually, because it holds out an opportunity, knowing that people cannot take it. Our people deserve better than that. I am disappointed by the motion, and I look forward to what happens afterwards, if there is real and genuine concern about the community and voluntary sector.”
“Other people left in anticipation that the ring-fencing would not be returned. It is the same principle. I agree with ring-fencing. The SDLP removed ring-fencing for housing figures in 2010 and again thereafter, which meant that those who experienced inequality faced even deeper inequality. Do I think that each Department should ring-fence resources for the community and voluntary sector? Yes, I do. I always have and always will, because unless you target resources at those who are most in need, those people will always continue to have less. That is a fact. For me, it is also a class issue. Most of those who are impacted on are in section 75 groups: they are the most vulnerable. Saying, "We support the community and voluntary sector but" is just not good enough and does not cut it.”
“As Colm Gildernew said, the SDLP is quite happy for us all to try to bail the Brits out yet again. I think that that is cynical and crass. <BR /> <BR />I understand fully why people are so annoyed about it, given that there were plenty of parties here that were cheerleading for Brexit but now cry foul about the impacts of that on some of their most vulnerable constituents. However, despite all that, I still think that there are opportunities even after this vote. If people are completely genuine about helping the sector out, there are still opportunities for us all to go back. Pushing it on the doors of the Executive is not only short-sighted but unfair. <BR /> <BR />Andy Allen mentioned what happened to the youth sector. Again, that was last-minute. People were looking for other jobs.”
“When I worked in it in 2007, people were put on protective notice every month, and nothing much has changed. We need to collectively go back to the British Government because their funding model is almost like death by a different type of approach. It is a one-size-fits-all model. There is no consideration of this place having the worst figures for deprivation and a legacy of deprivation and discrimination. Working-class areas in particular that were greatly impacted on by the conflict have been left high and dry yet again. <BR /> <BR />Some of the bigger organisations come up here to protest, and I support their right to do that, but I would prefer it if they went to the NIO because that is where the power lies — not with the Executive but with the British Government.”
“If I have picked it up right, the sentiment of the debate has been about making sure that there is support for the community and voluntary sector, but, when I read the motion, I thought that it was just another SDLP motion about bailing the Brits out. It is crass, and it is cynical. It uses the plight of the community and voluntary sector to strike points against the Executive. Had the motion been about us all collectively challenging the British Government for the way that the local growth fund has been managed, there would be no amendments whatsoever. However, it is what it is, and, in my opinion, it is quite sad, and it is quite disappointing. <BR /> <BR />Sian mentioned the community and voluntary sector, which she came from. I also worked in the sector for a number of years.”
“Waiting for equality for decades has been horrendous, but I am really proud to know you and to have worked with you all. Again, I thank the officials, the Minister and, indeed, you all for bringing this forward.”
“I think that, if we all start from there and work our way back, we will recognise that that is one of the most essential parts of the legislation in supporting and assisting communication. <BR /> <BR />The legislation is a good place to start. I know that some concerns were raised about co-production and co-design, but, going by what the Minister, the Committee Chair and every other Member who has spoken have said, this is not the end of that co-production and co-design, nor is it the end of inclusion. There is a generosity of spirit to ensure that we make things as good as we can from here on. <BR /> <BR />Everyone today has said that this is a really important day. It is a momentous day. We can have lots of descriptions of it, but, to the campaigners and their families, I want to say, "Thank you".”
“As legislators, this is a big day for us, because our job is primarily to make sure that we enact legislation for those who need it the most. I can think of no legislation that any Member, regardless of where they are from and what party they represent, is prouder to stand over. <BR /> <BR />We cannot go through today without mentioning Francis Maginn. Even in his day, he understood the need to have sign language recognised as a form of communication. What is really important, however, is the free classes that there will be for children, young people and families. I cannot begin to understand what it would be like not to be able to communicate with my loved ones.”
“<BR /> <BR />As we get older, we want to leave things in a better place for those coming behind us. That is done to best effect only through legislation. That is why I mentioned the campaigners. I am sure that they will not mind my referring to them as "stalwarts". I was inspired by what they said this morning. As older people with all that lived experience, they certainly will not give up — I do not think that they know how to — but they may be able to rest easier knowing that, for the first time in their lifetime, we are on the right path. <BR /> <BR />Sign language is a language. This place has been responsible for bringing forward many languages. It has heard lots of colourful language in the past.”
“Sorry, Tommy, but I just had to mention that. <BR /> <BR />I do not know whether the rest of you heard John and Brian on the radio this morning. I will not go back over what they said, as it is their own experience, but humility and hopefulness came from them this morning, despite the awful discrimination and, indeed, hurt that they, their families and the deaf community faced for decades. They were so thankful and optimistic about the future. I know that there are many others whom I could mention, but I will take the opportunity to thank John, Agnes, Brian and Majella. I worked with Majella when I was in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, as has every Minister since. I acknowledge the work that all of them have done on behalf of the deaf community.”
“This is a momentous day. When the legislation was introduced, I said to the Minister that it was probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that this place had done or would ever do. It has given legal status to and recognised a community that has faced discrimination, inequality, othering, a denial of rights and then some. The Bill is therefore hugely important. I thank the Minister. I am sure that he will not mind if I mention in particular Tommy McAuley, who has been involved in the work and received an honour for it. He has been with representatives of the deaf community in trying to get legislation introduced for well over a decade. Credit where it is due.”
“Unlike the Budgets in Scotland and in Wales, the North is funded well below need. Therefore, will the First Minister commit to continually putting the case for a fairer and better Budget to fund public services in the North?”