Alan Chambers
North Down · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“<BR /> <BR />A relatively recent piece of important character that was added to the village some years ago was the addition of a number of trees along Main Street.”
“It is my pleasure and privilege to present a petition signed by more than 1,500 people calling on the Department for Infrastructure to drop plans to chop down a number of mature street trees in Main Street, Groomsport. <BR /> <BR />Groomsport is a beautiful village with a strong community spirit.”
“Indeed, in the past week, it has been adjudged to be the best-kept town on the island of Ireland. It has many outstanding characteristics, including three lovely beaches with clean and pollution-free bathing water; a well-sheltered harbour that is reputed to have been first constructed by the Vikings; a modern children's playground; and t…”
“Minister, I sent a question for written answer in May 2025. You told me that your officials had identified a problem on the A48 in November 2024 and that a works order had been issued.”
“The Department's approach to the problem, however, has been to fire up the chainsaws. That is a shameful and unacceptably lazy plan. There are many engineering solutions that do not involve such crude environmental vandalism. Government policy, rather than to chop down healthy mature specimens, is to encourage more tree planting.”
“For many, the ability to start or grow a family is a major priority; for others, it is not a priority at all. When fertility problems stand in the way of that dream, the emotional toll can be immense. There has already been reference to the commitment in NDNA, which was one reason why my party very much welcomed that agreement.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,411 lines we hold for Alan Chambers, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 29.
“I look forward to the Bill's, hopefully, reaching its Final Stage later this evening.”
“Whilst I, of course, welcome her interest in trying to help make the Bill stronger, it is very important that the Bill is not unintentionally undermined either through a fundamental change to its intent of applying to historical institutions or by introducing legislative deficiencies at this very last stage. Nonetheless, today's debate has allowed the House to put a number of points on the record, and that is important. Having spoken to the Minister before today's debate, I am very confident that, due to our not ultimately introducing some of those changes, the Bill remains a competent piece of legislation and will still very much deliver what it was always intended to do. <BR /> <BR />Again, I thank the House for its continuing support for and helpful scrutiny of the Bill.”
“The proposer of today's amendments and the Minister have already spoken in detail on the intent, but also the possible implications, of each of the possible changes before us, so I only intend to make a few brief remarks. <BR /> <BR />First, I thank Members again for their ongoing interest in and support for the Bill, as well as for making themselves available to facilitate the very short timescales involved. It is not easy having so many stages in such a short time frame. However, the approach of the House so far is a testament to the collective recognition of what the Bill is trying to achieve and why it is so important. <BR /> <BR />I thank Ms Bradshaw for her sensible approach in not moving a number of the amendments, as well as her decision not to seek support for some others.”
“The Ulster Unionist Party supports all of the amendments, but we also fully support the good intentions that the Bill brings to the House.”
“Given the current state of the world, we could see delays in producing mechanical controls. They may have to be manufactured bespoke for each entrance at each site. There is no doubt that materials will be in short supply throughout the world over the coming months, given the situation in Ukraine. <BR /> <BR />The Minister mentioned the budget. That is one of the consequences of bringing in the Bill over six months, which is such a short period. Given the budgetary difficulties that the Assembly is experiencing, the next six months may not be the time to impose such a dent in the Department of Health's budget. We need to take account of that issue. <BR /> <BR />The amendments are certainly not designed to undermine the worthy Bill; they are designed to make it more deliverable and fit for purpose from day 1.”
“Amendment No 1 meets the good intent of the Bill by excluding many groups, particularly staff, from having to pay a charge to park at hospitals. It also goes some way to helping to avoid abuse of the system. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 2, during the Bill's journey through the Health Committee, I expressed concerns about the six-month period for coming into operation after Royal Assent being too tight and that such a short lead-in time could lead to chaos. We were told that the system of number plate recognition that has been deployed in some Scottish hospitals would be a helpful and useful logistical process to use at our hospitals, but we have since learned from a research paper that a lot of problems are being experienced in Scotland and other locations where that system of number plate recognition has been deployed.”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their support and their embracing of the private Member's Bill. I am sure that, as I am, all Members are looking forward to Thursday evening, when we can finally say that the Bill has passed.”
“I am very pleased to have tabled the amendments this evening to take account of the concerns that were expressed by Ms Dillon last week. I appreciate her articulation of those concerns. <BR /> <BR />If ever there was a Bill that gave the House a reason to act in common cause and harmony, this is it. The Bill will help to reveal many hitherto untold truths for many individuals who have been denied that truth to date. It will be a wonderful legacy for the House in this mandate to have produced this legislation, which, hopefully, will offer hope and the prospect of peace of mind to all the victims, who deserve no less. It will also facilitate, in any future inquiry, the uncovering of the many examples of abuse and negative and neglectful treatment of victims whilst they were in care. Victims deserve nothing less than the full truth.”
“That, I hope, avoids any ambiguity surrounding the clause. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister and his officials who worked with me, often well out of hours, to help to bring forward today's amendments. It is clear that they are as committed to the successful passage of the Bill as we, the MLAs, are. <BR /> <BR />We are only a few days away from the prospect of securing Final Stage approval, and I hope that today's amendments help to ease a number of the genuine points of concern that were raised in the debate last week.”
“<BR /> <BR />Following close engagement with the Department of Health over recent days, however, it has been decided that it is still possible, if not probable, that information relating to the care of a child who was born to a resident in a mother-and-baby institution and separated from his or her mother within the first two months of his or her life will be of interest to a future inquiry. On that basis, it is accepted that clause 3(5) should be amended to leave out the words:”
“The Bill is intended to capture information relating to where children lived and how they were cared for when they were separated, either permanently or for long periods, from their mothers. As a result, it is necessary to provide a definition of "separated" in the Bill. Clause 3(5) is intended to exclude more routine separations between mothers and children, such as when one was ill in hospital or perhaps even staying with another family member over a holiday season.”
“<BR /> <BR />During that debate, Ms Dillon made the very valid point that in many cases when babies were adopted, they were registered as the natural child of their adoptive parents. The point was also made that the fact that care was provided by a relative does not guarantee that an adopted person knows or knew anything about their birth parent or their time in an institution. Amendment No 4 removes that exclusion. <BR /> <BR />Finally, amendment No 3 removes from clause 3(5) the words:”
“The proposed definition now includes documents created by a person in communication with a "relevant institution". As a result, letters between parents, GPs or priests, for instance, will all be captured by the duty to preserve. It was also considered important that the definition of "relevant document" also captured communication with the institution itself, and I am glad that the amendment achieves that. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 is largely technical, but it is important in the context of what amendment No 4 seeks to do. That amendment addresses a concern raised during the debate last week that clause 3(6), as drafted, excluded any information about accommodation or care provided to the child by a natural parent or relative of the child from the definition of "relevant information".”
“During the debate, however, there were a number of important questions asked and points made which it was decided, after further engagement with the Minister and his officials, would be important to address at Consideration Stage. Accordingly, we have four amendments before us today in my name and that of my colleague Robbie Butler. I also thank Linda Dillon for her continuing close interest, as well as her decision to add her name to some of the amendments before us. The cross-party support for the Bill will, I am sure, continue to be welcomed by the victims and survivors, many of whom are closely following its passage. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 adds to the definition of "relevant document" at clause 2 and leaves no ambiguity as to what exactly will be covered by the duty to preserve and when the offence for non-compliance will apply.”
“Again, I thank the Speaker and the Business Committee for their discretion in facilitating the swift progression and consideration of this important Bill. <BR /> <BR />I was very much heartened and reassured by the contributions from across the House at last week's Second Stage. The Assembly is at its best when it is considering and scrutinising legislation. Therefore, it is fitting that, despite the obvious problems elsewhere, in the final week of this mandate we are still able to, hopefully, pass hugely important legislation such as the Bill before us. <BR /> <BR />The rationale of the Bill was well understood and articulated by all last week.”
“Two of my DUP colleagues on the Health Committee, who are well aware of the issue, having worked on it over the past two years, and know the score, have said that their party is whipping today but that they will abstain. I say to those two Members, "Well done". <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew says that there has to be a better way than this. I suggest to Mr Frew that, perhaps, the start of creating a better way would be to get the Executive back in place.”
“<BR /> <BR />It was mentioned that this would give the Minister draconian powers. Tell that to the hundreds and hundreds of people who are suffering from long COVID. Tell that to the family who I know in which four young children, all under 12 years of age, lost their mother and grandmother to COVID within 10 days of each other. Tell that family that the powers that we are going to give the Minister are draconian. <BR /> <BR />We have also heard — I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us — that a Minister in the Executive is trying to stymie this draft legislation's going forward. I give this message to that Minister: hang your head in shame. That is a Minister who helped to collapse the Executive.”
“Are we going to let our health and social care staff face the potential of another outbreak with no controls in place to protect them? What a kick in the teeth that would be to those heroes. What about more families facing the grief of losing a loved one to the virus, while we, including the Minister, stand like spectators unable to do anything to help curb the spread of that new variant? <BR /> <BR />Members have asked, "Why are you bringing this legislation in, because you admitted earlier that you may not be able to use it?". That may be true. It might end up in front of a judge; I do not know. However, it is prudent that it is in place so that, if it is necessary to test it in court, it is there to be tested. I would rather have that situation than simply to dismiss the extension.”
“No. <BR /> <BR />If the Minister did nothing and there was an outbreak of a variant, the first people to point the finger at the Health Minister and his Department and accuse them of being ill-prepared would be the very people who object to the extension of these powers. These powers are simply powers to react — an insurance policy. <BR /> <BR />We have heard a lot of tributes being paid — absolutely and totally deserved — to the people who work in our health and social care system. They are people to whom, at the start of the pandemic, PPE was maybe not available because of the circumstances, but they went in, fought, nursed people and put themselves at personal risk. What are we going to do? Are we going to say, "No. We will not extend these powers"?”
“That is exactly what it is for: public health. This is a Minister acting with prudence to enable measures to be taken in the event of a new variant emerging, and God forbid that that should happen. The Minister mentioned that it is an insurance policy. It made me think. Look around this Building, your office and maybe your own home. What is sitting in the corner? Fire extinguishers. Why do you have them? They are an insurance policy so that, in the event of a fire, you will be able to deal with it. It is the same with defibrillators, which we are trying to put into more and more public buildings. It is prudent; it is planning for something that could go wrong. That piece of equipment will be there to save a life. That is how I view the extension of these powers. It is about saving lives in the event of the virus coming back.”
“The owner of the lone voice of opposition that we have heard to date this afternoon has been looking back quite a bit in his comments. I like to view the order as looking forward and not back. The Minister has made it very clear that he has no desire to impose more regulations or guidance. Maybe the clue is in the title of the order, which includes the words:”
“A paramedic's work can be challenging, both physically and emotionally, and even comes with a little bit of danger. Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland is fortunate to have the number and calibre of student paramedics coming forward that it does?”
“It has taken 16 years, but it has finally arrived. I commend the Minister for his leadership and his determination to finally deliver the legislation. I also place on record my appreciation to his staff, who have worked so diligently to create the legislation. As Mr McGrath said, the House has demonstrated, through the Bill, what we can deliver for the people of Northern Ireland when we all work closely together. This may be one of the Bills on which it is easier for us all to take a collegiate approach, but I would like to see the day when we can all work together to deal with the harder and more difficult pieces of draft legislation that come through the House.”
“This is a significant and important Bill. It will make good law that has the current and future welfare of adopted children at its core. It will improve the outcomes for looked-after children and young people, including young people who have left care. It will also cater for the needs, be those financial or for support, of adopters. We must never forget the selfless part that adopters play in providing a child with a stable family setting. The legislation will greatly improve the quality of life for many people for years to come. I welcome the provision in the Bill to make access to information that little bit easier for adopted adults. <BR /> <BR />I am delighted to see the Bill reach this point. Today will be seen as a good day for those who adopt and, most importantly, for children in care and children who have been adopted.”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their cooperation and their goodwill towards the Bill.”
“In terms of separation, the time frame of two months in this private Member's Bill is much reduced from the original timescale that was proposed in the Adoption and Children Bill, which was six months. So, we have closed that to a two-month separation. <BR /> <BR />Clause 3(5) is intended to define what is meant by "separation". There may be well-intentioned reasons for a child being separated from its mother, so it is important that we do not wrongly capture those well-intentioned arrangements, given the offences that are attached to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I have certainly listened to and appreciate all the comments that were made. Hopefully, we can work together to ensure that, by Thursday of next week, victims and survivors will have the Bill that they have been crying out to have to preserve the records for them to access.”
“<BR /> <BR />Ms Dillon made the important point about death and burial records, which is a touching element of the situation. She will recognise that the private Member's Bill gives protection for that and rightly so. I welcome her making that point.”
“I will refer to some points that have been raised during the debate. <BR /> <BR />I have been given a reassurance by the Department of Health that the Bill will create no barriers to victims having immediate access to the records now. It is the intention of the Bill that victims and survivors will have access to the records at a time of their choosing. We should understand that, if we did not have the Bill and we did not have the compulsion to retain and preserve the documents, there may well be nothing for victims or survivors to access. We must bear that in mind. <BR /> <BR />When the documents are drawn together, they will eventually be placed in an independent repository. That is the purpose of the Bill. That is the correct way that they should be preserved in the public domain for access by victims and survivors.”
“I thank them again, along with the Minister of Health, and I sincerely hope that, over the next 10 days, the House will be able to secure the legal protection of these crucial documents.”
“Finally, the only other clause that I will mention at this stage is clause 8. This clause states that the legislation will commence immediately after it receives Royal Assent. The preservation of documents is hugely important, and it cannot happen a day too soon. <BR /> <BR />Again, I acknowledge the proactive and detailed support that I received from the Department of Health. In more normal circumstances, the Bill would undoubtedly have been introduced as an Executive Bill. However, by working so closely with officials who were already so well informed on the topic, I have been able to introduce a Bill that I am very confident will deliver what we all hope it will.”
“Just to be sure, clause 5 makes it an offence to not comply with the general duty in clause 1.”
“and includes periods of absence from the institution. That is important, because it captures the periods when, for example, women were in hospital giving birth or when they were visiting a GP. By now, I sincerely hope that all institutions and the bodies responsible for them recognise the importance of properly retaining and maintaining records.”
“Importantly, a resident of a "relevant institution" is also defined in the clause as being a person of any age:”
“For women and girls, the documents will contain crucial, definitive accounts of their journey into, within and out of such institutions. <BR /> <BR />Clause 4 provides a definition of "relevant institution" as being a workhouse or:”
“<BR /> <BR />I also want it noted that the Bill includes, as I said earlier, many of the amendments that a number of Sinn Féin MLAs tabled to clauses in the Adoption and Children Bill, on which this Bill is largely based. I am confident that those amendments strengthen my Bill, in particular by widening its definition of "relevant information" and of "relevant institution". Of course, it is not just for legal or investigatory reasons that documents need to be retained. For a great number of children who are now adults, those documents are the first, and often only, official account of their birth and their earliest weeks and months of life. For some, the documents will contain precious details and information never before revealed.”
“Importantly, it intends to prevent the movement of records out of Northern Ireland and to ensure that records, given their significance, are kept in the safest possible conditions. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 2 and 3 stipulate the conditions that must be satisfied before a document is considered relevant, and they provide a definition of "relevant document" and of "relevant information". Importantly, I draw Members' attention to the fact that being of interest to the inquiry or investigation makes it relevant. It is also important to note that the duty to preserve and not destroy records applies equally to the institutions to which they relate and the statutory organisations involved in the placement of women and girls, and of their children when they were separated from their mothers.”
“Thankfully, the Executive agreed to the recommendation of a victim-centred independent investigation, one that, crucially, was co-designed with victims and survivors. <BR /> <BR />The truth recovery design panel made a number of key recommendations, and, as we know, the Bill seeks to deliver part 1 of recommendation 4. It should be remembered that all the panel's recommendations had the full support of victims and survivors, who worked alongside its members to help formulate them. More than 180 victims and survivors, from as far away as Canada, Australia and the United States of America, worked alongside the panel for six months. Recommendation 4 is their recommendation, and, as a consequence, this Bill is their Bill, because it is intended to give full effect to the first part of recommendation 4. <BR /> <BR />My Bill has nine clauses.”
“It was abuse that they experienced, and all sorts of appalling abuse. Coming only a few days after the Chamber was home to the delivery of a wide range of apologies for the failings in historical institutions, it is fitting that, so quickly after, the Assembly is debating legislation that serves to enshrine in law the right of victims of historical abuse to access the truth. As we have heard, the joint research from Queen's University and Ulster University was harrowing, but it provided a definitive, evidential basis for what survivors long knew to be the truth. Importantly, the review also included an oral history project that allowed the women, girls and children who experienced the institutions the opportunity to provide their testimony.”
“I thank the House for allowing the Bill to proceed, and I am very pleased to be able to move it at Second Stage. We have already heard much of the context and rationale for the Bill in the debate that has just concluded, so I do not intend to repeat that. However, I hope to provide an overview of the Bill and explain why it is so important that it delivers the protections that it sets out to provide. As I said earlier, it is imperative that the voices and needs of victims and survivors of the appalling neglect and abuse in these historical institutions are kept to the forefront of what we are all trying, collectively, to achieve with the Bill.”
“I will be very brief. I welcome the sense of support that I feel from around the House for accelerated passage, and I thank Members for that. I am on record, once or twice, with the statement that the House is at its best when it delivers. There is no doubt that the Bill will deliver for a constituency of people who deserve that delivery. I thank Members for the sense of support that I am getting.”
“I do not doubt that, procedurally, all normal processes have been set to the side. Had we had more time, I would, of course, have preferred to follow the time frames that are set out in Standing Orders, including giving the Health Committee time to scrutinise the Bill in detail. Unfortunately, however, time is quickly running out. Securing the Bill in little more than two weeks from its introduction to Final Stage will be a Herculean task, but it might just be possible. <BR /> <BR />I hope that all Members will be able to agree to my request for accelerated passage for my Preservation of Documents (Historical Institutions) Bill.”
“Whilst the Bill is in my name, I very much hope that the House will see it as a Bill that all Members equally contribute to and secure. It is clear from the emails that I have received, before and since its introduction last week, that victims and survivors sincerely hope that it will proceed. The Bill, if passed, will be all the stronger if it retains that sense of political unanimity. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that Sinn Féin, through Ms Dillon, originally tabled helpful amendments to the Adoption and Children Bill. Those amendments from Sinn Féin have been incorporated into this private Member's Bill and, indeed, help to strengthen it. I place on record that recognition. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I thank the Speaker, along with his staff, for agreeing to facilitate the Bill.”
“I thank the Department of Health and, especially, a number of its officials; they know who they are. I would not be standing here without their support, or the assistance that they and the Minister provided to me in developing the Bill. Those officials recognise just how important the draft legislation is. It is because of them that I am able to say that I am entirely confident that the Bill delivers for victims and survivors. I also thank each of the party Whips on the Business Committee. I know about the pressures on plenary time that the Assembly was already facing, even before this private Member's Bill. I acknowledge their efforts to facilitate these debates. <BR /> <BR />I very much welcome the cross-party support that I have received from many across the House in the days since the Bill's introduction last week.”
“It is not only essential that any and all material is kept safe for the future investigations and public inquiry, it is hugely important for all the women and children, now adults, involved. They deserve to know that the records that exist will be kept safe. <BR /> <BR />That, in a nutshell, explains why the Bill is so important. Some might argue that the Bill could wait until the next mandate. Whilst there could, absolutely, be some validity to that thinking, I do not agree with it. I am very confident that the Bill, as drafted, is no different to one that would be introduced in six, 12 or 24 months' time. We can be sure of one thing, however: if the Bill passes all stages by next Thursday evening, the legal protection of documents will have been secured an awful lot sooner than it would otherwise have been.”
“My Bill, as introduced last week, seeks to deliver the key elements in recommendation 4. I fully accept, however, that a Bill as important as this must, first and foremost, always be centred on the views and needs of victims and survivors. <BR /> <BR />Ordinarily, it would be the Minister of Health bringing forward a Bill such as this, but only after a period of consultation. However, in the current political situation that we find ourselves, Executive legislation was not an option. We need no reminding that the House is in the final weeks of what was already a much-reduced legislative mandate. The legislation is urgent. For every day that passes, with the legal requirement for the preservation of documents not in place, the risk of documents being either destroyed or kept in far-from-suitable conditions increases.”
“<BR /> <BR />The panel made five core recommendations and explained their interdependencies, stressing the importance of delivering each and every one of them. I welcome the Executive's swift consideration of the report last year and their full acceptance of the findings, not least their agreement to proceed with the establishment of an integrated truth investigation made up of an expert independent panel and a public inquiry. It is in relation to another of the very important recommendations, however — recommendation 4 on access to records — that I hope that my private Member's Bill will be able to deliver. <BR /> <BR />We should not, for one moment, underestimate how important access to records is. For the people who were robbed of so much, including so many at such a young age, that is the very least that they deserve now.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the clearest findings of the research paper was that many unanswered questions remain. The Executive decision early last year to set up an independent investigation shaped by the views of victims and survivors of those institutions was much welcomed. The Minister of Health, Mr Robin Swann, took forward its delivery by establishing the truth recovery design panel, which comprised the experts Dr Maeve O'Rourke, Professor Phil Scraton and Deirdre Mahon. The panel delivered its report by early October, within the highly challenging six-month time frame. That is testament to the determination with which the panel members approached the issue and the priority that they gave it.”
“The research study, for which the authors should, once again, be truly commended, examined in detail eight mother-and-baby homes, a number of former workhouses and four Magdalene laundries. It found that around 10,500 women were admitted to mother-and-baby institutions and around 3,000 were admitted to Magdalene laundries. Over recent months, as I read through more of the report, I could not fail to be overcome with a sense of disbelief that such cruelty and indifference to basic human needs could ever be inflicted on so many women and children in our not-so-distant past. Let us remember that the research report investigated the period right up to 1990. Only then did the last mother-and-baby facility close its doors. So, for many of the people involved, we are talking about clear and vivid memories.”
“Whilst I will leave many of the points of detail to the Second Stage debate, which is scheduled to follow shortly, I hope that all Members will understand why there is an urgency to what the Bill tries to secure. The published research report on mother-and-baby homes and Magdalene laundries was harrowing. It presented a graphic insight into the lived experiences of the many thousands of women, girls and children who suffered such appalling abuse and neglect in those institutions. Of course, those children are now adults, and many of the women who suffered such abuse have, sadly, passed on, but that, rightly, was never considered to be a barrier to the long-overdue uncovering of the truth.”
“Having said that, will the Member encourage the other parties in the Chamber that have already nailed their colours to the mast in opposition to amendment No 4 to reflect on their positions?”