Paula Bradshaw
South Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“They were places where those who were vulnerable were concealed, young mothers were stripped of their babies and children were stripped of their identities. Let us be resolute in our remembrance of what happened behind the doors of those institutions.”
“At all stages, the Committee has set out its clear support for the legislation's overarching aims and principles, which are to establish a statutory public inquiry into the systemic failings associated with mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses between 1922 and 1995 and to create a statutory redress scheme for t…”
“Again, I refuse to call them "mother-and-baby homes", for we now know that there was nothing homely about them. What the Bill can and must do is offer a tangible declaration that the state accepts its responsibility.”
“As Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Final Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill.”
“Key points were also made in relation to redress: the need to ensure that the Executive Office introduces clear guidelines for the scheme as soon as practicable; the need for the Executive Office to widely communicate and promote the scheme to all victims and survivors, including those who live overseas; and the need for the Executive Off…”
“The First Minister and deputy First Minister tabled a number of amendments that gave effect to the Committee's intent across a number of clauses. In several instances, the Committee chose to withdraw its amendments in favour of the Ministers' wording, where that better reflected the broader book of the law.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,444 lines we hold for Paula Bradshaw, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 49.
“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.”
“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?”
“<BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />That is all I have to say at this stage.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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 thank the junior Minister for giving way. I am conscious that she was about to close. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“<BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />That is all that I have to say on that group.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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 —”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“Obviously, we are pushing for that. <BR /> <BR />In particular, I pay tribute to the Executive Office for tabling amendment No 3 to insert a new sub-paragraph (ia) to include:”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />I will now make some points as an individual MLA.”
“<BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />The Committee held three familiarisation sessions with stakeholders to outline the Committee Stage of the Bill ahead of our call for evidence.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“I totally agree with that. <BR /> <BR />As we head towards another Assembly election in less than a year's time, we see today attempts to drag politics back into an endless constitutional headcount. Steve Aiken pointed to that as well. In some ways, this is about people gearing up for the election. Frankly, it is astonishing that, almost three decades on from the Good Friday Agreement, our political structures still directly incentivise that dynamic. As my party colleague Eóin Tennyson clearly stated, the agreement absolutely and rightly provides the mechanism through which constitutional questions are resolved peacefully and democratically, and it recognises the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely expressed by the majority of people here.”
“Those are the issues that are being discussed around kitchen tables, and they are what we are being told about on the doorsteps. Those issues will also determine whether young people choose to build their future here, and I think that that is something that Daniel McCrossan did —.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was not sure that I was getting one. <BR /> <BR />We have said many times, Matthew, that there are people in the Alliance Party who take a number of constitutional positions. Some people are for a united Ireland; some people want to remain in the United Kingdom; and some people just feel natural and comfortable being Irish, British or both. I recognise that there is a distinction, but we focus our energy as a party on making this place work for people. <BR /> <BR />As I said, meanwhile, the public rightly want us to focus on improving healthcare, reforming education, growing our economy, delivering housing, strengthening infrastructure and creating opportunity. This is a rare occurrence where I will agree with Jonathan Buckley and Phillip Brett, who both pointed to that in their contributions.”
“We should be honest enough to acknowledge that our institutions sometimes encourage precisely that failure. For so long as our political system remains built around communal designation and sectarian veto, we should not be surprised when, as we see in the Chamber today, too much political energy is consumed in constitutional positioning instead of practical delivery.”
“The context that we are moving into now is one where populism grows. My party colleague Eóin Tennyson highlighted that, as did Declan Kearney. While there were particular circumstances in England, Scotland and Wales, one statistic that should be of concern to all of us is that turnout in the Scottish Parliament election collapsed to barely half of those eligible to vote. The biggest winner was not one political party but disengagement, frustration and antipathy towards politics itself. There is a risk of something similar happening here. Indeed, one of the greatest dangers facing our politics is that people increasingly conclude that the Chamber is incapable of focusing consistently on the issues that matter in and impact on their daily lives.”
“I totally agree with Gerry Carroll that people start trying to blame the most vulnerable and marginalised people, including migrants, who have something positive to contribute to society.”
“I acknowledge the historic nature of the three First Ministers of the devolved Administrations, as Emma Sheerin outlined, but, in my opinion, the clearest message from those elections was something entirely different: for far too many people, politics simply is not working. Perhaps we should all reflect on what happens when large numbers of people lose their faith in politics and seek a political home elsewhere. Timothy Gaston raised that. We should reflect on what fills that vacuum when trust in institutions collapses, when public services deteriorate and when communities feel ignored, because into that vacuum step those who offer easy answers, simplistic slogans and someone else to blame.”
“Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. What an entirely predictable debate it has been so far. I was not going to get dragged into it, but Daniel's contribution was enlightening. He said that we are an irrelevant party in the debate, but we have 17 MLAs. Before the most recent election, we said to the voters, "Our focus is on education, health, fixing our economy and having better government here". We were rewarded in the polls. Maybe the SDLP should reflect on that as we approach the election in 12 months' time. <BR /> <BR />I spoke in the Chamber last week about the predictable rush to the microphones following the election results in Great Britain earlier this month. Once again, every result was immediately interpreted through the narrow lens of constitutional division, identity politics or the culture war.”
“<BR /> <BR />Bovine TB compensation, which is a statutory requirement, is placing significant pressure on DAERA's budget and must be prioritised for in-year funding. The £5 million that the Executive have continued to earmark per annum for Lough Neagh is welcome, but given the scale of the crisis that we are facing, more investment is required to turn the situation around and improve our environment, tackle climate change and strengthen environmental protections. <BR /> <BR />There is no proposed increase to DAERA's earmarked allocations of £7·9 million, £13·7 million, £10·9 million and £4 million for the just transition fund for agriculture. That remains disappointing at a time when we need to increase our support for the agri-food sector.”
“Difficult decisions will follow, and discussions between our Committee and Ministers will need to be had to ensure that the departmental budget is adequate. <BR /> <BR />I will now make some points in my capacity as an MLA about the DAERA budget. We welcome the proposed continued earmarking by the Executive of £332·5 million for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development for each year of the Budget period. We are, however, disappointed that there continues to be no inflationary increase in the funding, especially in light of the challenges that farmers are currently facing. The general DEL resource allocations to DAERA over the next three years are among the worst for all the Departments, giving DAERA a very constrained financial position.”
“The establishment of the truth recovery inquiry will be a milestone for victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. <BR /> <BR />The total identified capital DEL need over the Budget period is £19·1 million in 2026-27, £12·6 million in 2027-28, £11·3 million in 2028-29 and £12 million in 2029-2030. Those requirements are driven by investment in Urban Villages, Ebrington, the Maze/Long Kesh site, various lease renewals and the establishment of the Climate Commissioner. The Committee will closely monitor those capital requirements. <BR /> <BR />As the House is aware, there is no agreed Executive Budget for this year or the remainder of the spending review period at this time.”
“That is extremely concerning, given that femicide rates continue to rise in Northern Ireland, with 30 women killed here since 2020. The Committee will continue to raise that issue with the Department. In the past, the Executive Office has been reliant on in-year allocations to fund and continue key programmes. Members are concerned that the progress achieved in previous years could be lost if programmes are scaled back or delayed as a result of reduced or uncertain funding. <BR /> <BR />Members also noted that resource DEL requirements across the Budget period indicate a total need of between £153·9 million and £194·5 million over the three years. Those pressures are driven primarily by growth in the victims' payments scheme, the establishment of the truth recovery inquiry and its redress scheme and the need for PEACE PLUS match funding.”
“<BR /> <BR />The non-earmarked resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) baseline is £85·6 million per annum across the Budget period, and additional bids have identified amounts of £16·5 million in 2026-27, £20·5 million in 2027-28 and £24·1 million in 2028-29. Current pressures include statutory commitments for the rights and languages bodies and the Climate Commissioner. Other key pressures include pay inflation, the expansion of delivery under ending violence against women and girls, Communities in Transition programmes and good relations initiatives, as well as the implementation of the racial equality strategy and the north-west development fund. <BR /> <BR />The allocation for the ending violence against women and girls delivery plan does not provide the full amount that was requested for 2026-27.”
“On behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office, I thank the Finance Committee for its work on its report, for helpfully sharing information on budgets and financial matters and for bringing the motion to the House. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for the Executive Office considered written and oral briefings from officials on 4 February 2026. Members noted that the Executive Office budget for 2026-29/2030 is challenging. During the briefing, the Committee noted that the resource baseline is extremely challenging across earmarked and non-earmarked funding, as it is for all Departments.”
“Minister, do you have updates on the publication of the investment strategy? There is a key role for the SIB board in setting its direction, and this would be the right time for that strategy to come forward.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I chair the Committee for the Executive Office, and I put on record that this is not the end of the line for the Committee. I think that we were all upset and frustrated at the commissioner's use of a freedom of information request so as not to provide information, so we are writing to the Irish Language Commissioner citing section 44, but we will potentially also seek legal advice. Moreover, the Committee has written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to ask them what their understanding is of the supply of information to the Committee for scrutiny. I assure people that we have not let the issue drop.”
“The people whom we represent, whether they identify as unionist, as nationalist or, like a growing number of us who choose both, as other, are not asking us for a running commentary on the internal politics of Plaid Cymru or the Scottish National Party. They are asking us whether the Executive will survive in order to ensure that our schools receive the funding that they need; whether reform of our health service will happen; and whether we can build an economy that is sustainable, prosperous and inclusive. As legislators, our job is not to break up but to build up.”
“When we obsess over whether Scotland is going or Wales is wavering, we fall into the same old trap of ignoring bread-and-butter issues. Indeed, if the local election results in England are to be analysed at a national level, what we are seeing is a call for action to improve people's lives, which politics across the UK is failing to do. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party is clear that the constitutional future of any nation is a matter for its people, but it cannot and should not be the only matter that is up for debate at election time. We cannot feed a family or fix a health waiting list with a flag, regardless of which flag that is. Our mandate is to make Northern Ireland work.”
“Local government elections are about bins, planning, leisure facilities and other vital services that keep a community breathing, while elections to the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales are about the big issues such as health and education. To extrapolate from a handful of seats and say that there is a definite mandate for a constitutional outcome one way or another is a leap of logic. It does a disservice to the voters who cast their ballots last week based on their neighbourhoods, not the status of their borders. <BR /> <BR />I place on record my congratulations to our Lib Dem colleagues in Great Britain. They had a terrific election result. <BR /> <BR />In Northern Ireland, we know all too well the exhaustion that comes from viewing every election through the prism of a constitutional headcount.”
“In the wake of last week's elections in Great Britain, we have seen the predictable rush to the microphones. Some are heralding the results in Scotland and Wales as a seismic shift, a death knell for the Union or an inevitable surge towards independence. Others are noting, as we have just heard, that pro-Union parties collectively received the majority of the votes and claiming that little has changed. However, as we look at the data, which we must do in the context of our constituents in Northern Ireland, it is vital that we meet those headlines with a firm sense of reality. <BR /> <BR />We must remember that a significant proportion of last week's electoral map was defined by local council elections in London and different parts of England.”
“I concur with what others have said in paying tribute to Katie Simpson's family, and I thank Dr Melia for her work on the review. Minister, the term "coercive control" has come up a number of times today. Will you please outline how the justice system will take more cognisance of that?”
“Thank you, Minister, for that update. It seems that work is under way to address the issue, but, as you have outlined, it has been two years since the assembly hall was usable for pupils, and the school has been calling for the investment for nine years. I pay tribute to Mr McGarrigle, the incoming principal, for his work in highlighting the concerns. <BR /> <BR />Minister, can you ensure that funding will be available for all the works that are required to bring the school up to its design purpose?”