Aisling Reilly
West Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“As well as thanking every one of the victims and survivors who have contributed, I take the opportunity to also thank the Members of the House past and present and, in particular, the Committee Chair and Committee members, who worked so diligently and carefully to study and examine the Bill, to listen to victims and survivors and to bring…”
“Dealing with that injustice was core to the approach of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Before concluding deliberations on the Bill, I will bring our focus back to the women and children — now adults — their families and all survivors whose experiences have brought us to this point.”
“It is only by addressing the truths hidden in dark shadows that we can begin to properly shine a light on a society that continues to violate and oppress too many women and girls and to make sure that it never happens again and that, together, we commit to breaking the cycle of harm and violence against women and girls.”
“I hope that it now respects and fulfils the wishes of the women and girls who, for many decades, have suffered and been silenced. <BR /> <BR />It is a large, complex and sensitive piece of legislation. It is, no doubt, much more complex legislation than it first appeared, and there were many factors to balance.”
“<BR /> <BR />For some, the prospect of engaging with the inquiry may feel daunting. For that reason, we listened to victims and survivors when they told us that they wanted us to create a dual investigation, so that individuals had the option to engage with an expert independent panel and provide testimony in a different and more informal…”
“I say to the people who are still considering whether to come forward that your testimony matters. To those who have spent years searching for answers, I say that the inquiry will seek those answers.”
The complete record
Every one of 620 lines we hold for Aisling Reilly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“Initiatives that have been delivered through CIT alongside the incredible work of Féile an Phobail and many other grassroots organisations build confidence, strengthen community relationships and create a sense of pride and belonging in our communities. <BR /> <BR />Tackling criminality is not just about enforcement; it also has to be about prevention. It is about early intervention and making sure that people, particularly young people, have access to opportunities and support and have hope for the future. That is why partnership working between Departments, statutory agencies and the community and voluntary sector is so important. When communities are empowered, connected and properly supported, they are so much better and safer for everyone.”
“I absolutely agree. I am of the strong view that, in order to tackle criminality and create safer neighbourhoods, we have to build stronger, more resilient and inclusive communities. There are many vibrant community organisations across West Belfast from Twinbrook to the Shankill. A few that come to mind are St Comgall's, Black Mountain Shared Space and the Shankill Women's Centre. We also have our youth groups, sporting organisations, interface and cultural initiatives and local leaders who work tirelessly every day of the year to support people, particularly young people, by providing positive opportunities and pathways.”
“<BR /> <BR />Over the past year, CIT activity delivered by our delivery partners Extern, Community Restorative Justice (CRJ) Ireland and the Upper Springfield Development Trust in West Belfast has shown real progress through strong partnership working with local residents, the PSNI, the Housing Executive and other statutory agencies. During that period, approximately 1,500 people have engaged in CIT activities, including one-to-one and group interventions, community forums and other targeted activities. The evidence from the programme is now showing a real change in attitudes. There has been a 70% increase in people in the community feeling that they can influence decisions in their area and have their voices heard.”
“Since 2019, the Communities in Transition (CIT) project has been delivering targeted support in West Belfast through a range of interventions to help increase community resilience to paramilitarism and organised crime. With £5·5 million in investment to date, CIT has supported the community to tackle the real, hard-hitting issues caused by organised crime. That includes helping people affected by poor mental health and addiction; raising awareness of exploitation; working with young people to raise their aspirations and hope for the future; and addressing the impact of paramilitarism on the physical environment. Funding has also supported the transition of ex-prisoners through advocacy, access to employment and education and restorative community practices.”
“At the minute, clause 31(8) states "A person", so, in the scenario that your amendment describes, a person is not defined as being someone who was admitted as a baby and as a birth mother thereafter. I am just trying to understand the drafting of the amendment.”
“If you go back to the clause, you see that it refers to:”
“I thank the Member for taking my intervention and for his clarification on amendment No 30. Can he further clarify how it is drafted? Clause 31, as it is currently drafted, refers to "persons", which means that all persons who were admitted into an institution, once or multiple times, would receive the standardised payment. It does not specify whether someone was admitted as a baby and then as a mother. It defines anyone who is admitted under "persons" as a whole. I am just trying to understand the drafting.”
“Taken together, the amendments will help make sure that the legislation delivers the truth, recognition and justice that victims and survivors deserve and have long waited for.”
“<BR /> <BR />The inquiry provisions give effect to the ministerial commitments agreed through the truth recovery design panel, and survivors have been firmly placed at the centre. The provisions make sure than an independent and robust inquiry is capable of delivering the integrated investigation that survivors want and need. The amendments provide a clear structure for a timely, effective and focused inquiry to help establish what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. The Bill will provide a victim and survivor-centred process, with an advisory panel as a demonstration of that commitment. It will also make sure that the inquiry remains fair and independent.”
“That is a cause of frustration for us all, because, as I mentioned, those who are deemed to have caused serious harm to women and children should absolutely face the consequences of that, and they should pay. <BR /> <BR />That brings my remarks on the group of amendments about the inquiry to a close. I again acknowledge Members' thoughtful contributions, which have informed the debate. We have sought throughout the process to listen carefully to what victims and survivors have said, and, alongside victims, survivors and Members, we will continue with that work as the Bill progresses. I hope that that demonstrates our commitment to developing meaningful and responsive legislation for the many thousands of women and girls and their children, who are now adults, who were resident in mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses.”
“The First Minister and the deputy First Minister raised it again at the plenary meeting two weeks ago, because we feel that cooperation in that area is vital. Joanne and I met Minister Foley from the Dublin Government to discuss their scheme, and we spoke about how we could all take learning from it, particularly on records and the movement of women and babies across the border. We welcome the MOU between the Taoiseach and Keir Starmer that was announced recently. We also met Kate Forbes from the Scottish Government, and our officials are in regular contact with their counterparts. We have therefore been engaging regularly. Joanne and I meet officials weekly to review continually where we are and to discuss how we can move forward. I hope that that reassures the House.”
“The secondary legislation that we plan to introduce will be closely based on the inquiry rules of 2006, which already include provision for core participants. We recognise, however, that making that a requirement in the Bill is a valuable way to facilitate participation in the inquiry. We feel that that amendment would strengthen the participative nature of the inquiry and help make sure that victims and survivors' voices are heard. <BR /> <BR />Mr Gaston spoke about cooperation and ongoing cross-jurisdictional work, particularly at the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC). I can confirm that we have had regular engagement with other jurisdictions. I raised the matter at a previous NSMC plenary meeting, and it was discussed.”
“Absolutely. We initially had "14 days" in the Bill, but, when the amendments were tabled, particularly the Committee's amendment, we felt that 21 days would strike the right balance. I think that we all agree that victims and survivors should have to wait no longer than is necessary. As I said, it runs from the time that they are made aware, not from when the decision is made. We therefore felt that 21 days struck the right balance. On this occasion, we favour the Committee's amendment, but other Members have made their position clear. <BR /> <BR />The Committee's amendment No 22 to clause 27 would require the inquiry rules to include provision for the designation of core participants.”
“I will give way to Mr Brett and then Mr Carroll.”
“Again, as I mentioned before, we felt that 21 days strikes the right balance for victims and survivors without causing any more undue delay. The time of the judicial review starts from when the person is notified, not from when the decision is made. For the applicant, we believe that that is sufficient time for a judicial review to be brought forward. It also ensures that the inquiry is not unduly delayed, as I have mentioned before in respect of victims and survivors.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 21 to clause 26, tabled by Mr Carroll, seeks to extend the period for applying for a judicial review from 14 days to 28 days. For the reasons given previously, we believe that the Committee's amendment No 20 strikes the right balance between fairness and timeliness.”
“The amendment is from the Committee, and we very much welcome it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 20 is to clause 26 and was tabled by the Committee. It extends the period for submitting an application for judicial review from 14 days to 21 days. For context, the current requirement for 14 days follows the Inquiries Act 2005, where there is also a discretion to extend the period. We are keen to make sure that the inquiry proceeds in a timely manner for victims and survivors, and we also recognise that access to judicial reviews are a fundamental aspect of the inquiry process. Therefore, in our view, the Committee's amendment strikes an appropriate balance by providing additional flexibility while making sure that participants are not disadvantaged by overly restrictive timescales.”
“The current provision allows for at least a two-week interval between Ministers receiving a copy of the report and its publication, or sooner if it is agreed between the chairperson and Ministers. It would, therefore, be entirely feasible for the chairperson to publish an urgent report within days of giving it to the Ministers, if they agreed. We also note that consideration of the public interest is an Executive function and is not one for the inquiry chairperson. It would simply be a matter of good governance that Ministers should be given an appropriate time to consider a response to an inquiry report that they have jointly asked to be held. Therefore, we do not feel that that amendment is necessary. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17 is to clause 20, which deals with how reports are to be laid in the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 15, which is to clause 18, provides clarity and assurance that the chairperson of the inquiry may provide a series of interim or modular reports to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister before making their final report. The ability to provide interim and modular reports throughout would encourage timely reporting of inquiry findings. A modular approach to reporting in the inquiry could serve to assure those who may be advancing in age of the progress of the inquiry. <BR /> <BR />The effect of amendment No 16, which is to clause 19, would be that the chairperson could publish a report at any time without providing a copy to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, if it is considered in the public interest.”
“As was mentioned earlier, that would force a report that mentions people who may not have wanted to participate in the process. It could also have GDPR implications. By way of reassurance, however, the chair will, in line with normal practice, be empowered to name and report those who fail to comply with a request or when required to provide information. We think that that approach is both fair and reasonable, however it is essential that the chair retains an appropriate degree of discretion. It is also worth mentioning that the power to compel was in the HIA inquiry but was not used. If Mr Carroll, who tabled amendment No 14, were minded not to move it today, we and our officials would be more than happy to work with him to bring forward a form of wording at Further Consideration Stage.”
“We point to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that is being developed by officials in our Department with their counterparts in the Dublin Government with regard to sharing data that is relevant to the institutions and their pathways and practices. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 14 would require the chairperson to report on all evidence requested but not received under clause 16 — not just cross-jurisdictional evidence — and report on those from whom it is sought. That would constitute a risk, however low, not least because it would compel the chairperson to make such reports even if there were a valid reason for not providing the evidence or not wishing to do so. For example, the information may not be available, or it could identify a specific victim, survivor or whistle-blower.”
“At our appearance at the Committee for the Executive Office on 26 November 2025, we gave an undertaking that the cross-jurisdictional movement of women and children would be covered in the external terms of reference. I restate that commitment to the House today. Furthermore, the secondary legislation setting out the procedures to be adopted by the inquiry will closely follow the Inquiry Rules 2006, which require the inquiry to send written requests to anyone whom it wishes to produce a document or any other thing, irrespective of the jurisdiction. Similarly, for amendment No 13, once the terms of reference require the inquiry to investigate the facts concerning the cross-jurisdictional movement of women and children, it is incumbent on the Executive Office or, indeed, any other body here to facilitate the inquiry.”
“The default position is disclosure, not restriction. Public access should be limited only where it is strictly and demonstrably necessary. The amendment is intended to provide clear reassurance to victims and survivors that their interests and participation will be properly considered in decisions relating to public access to the inquiry and its proceedings. Its inclusion in the Bill would reinforce our strong commitment to openness and transparency and would strengthen the framework within which the inquiry would operate. <BR /> <BR />Amendments Nos 12, 13 and 14 relate to clause 16. Amendment No 12 would mandate the chairperson to take "all reasonable steps" to obtain relevant information from outside this jurisdiction. Essentially, that is duplicative.”
“<BR /> <BR />Stewart, you made some comments earlier about the Charity Commission. Our officials have met the Charity Commission and the Department for Communities, both of which have a regulatory role for charities in clause 12A(3) and clause 12A(4). The Charity Commission has confirmed, after reviewing those subsections, that it is content with clause 12A's inclusion and wording. Taken together, that illustrates our shared commitment to seeking contributions. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 to clause 15 is to make sure that, when considering whether to restrict access to the inquiry, the chairperson is required to take into account the potential impact of such a decision on the ability of any relevant person to participate in the inquiry. We are clear that the inquiry should operate on the basis of openness and transparency.”
“Secondly, it includes a provision that would enable voluntary contributions to be made more easily. For instance, clause 12A(3) and clause 12A(4) provide that, if a charity were to make a financial contribution under the scheme, that contribution would automatically be treated as being in furtherance of its charitable purposes and covered by its constitution, providing a public benefit, and being in the charity's interests. Those inclusions are helpful, as they provide charity trustees with more legislative certainty, should they decide to make a financial contribution to the scheme. That enabling provision is there to help organisations to make payments. It is not to avoid or stop payments being made. Any additional legislative provisions are helpful, as they provide trustees with more certainty.”
“Absolutely. I fully concur with your remarks, Stewart. We have raised that issue continuously with the British Secretary of State and will continue to do so. You are absolutely right that during the period of direct rule, there were serious failings in this place. Those who were here and oversaw those failings should make contributions. The British Government are very much central to that. We will continue to press and make the case that they should contribute. As I said, people knew about what was going on. <BR /> <BR />New clause 12A will do two things. First, it proposes to include in the Bill an obligation on the Executive Office to:”
“However, significant legal challenges would arise from mandating contributions in legislation, particularly in advance of a formal investigation. We remain firmly committed to making sure that any investigation is fair and impartial and reflects the core principles of a human rights-based approach. That will be fundamental to securing meaningful contributions. We cannot and will not risk the passage of the Bill. We cannot introduce provisions that risk the Bill's legislative competence. With all that in mind, we tabled amendment No 10.”
“We can, however, assure Members that we will continue to raise the matter with the Secretary of State and the British Government. <BR /> <BR />Let me be clear that this is neither a good nor a fair situation for us to be in. We strongly believe that there should be a line of accountability for those who are deemed to have caused harm, and we fully agree that they should make a contribution. We have also personally engaged on the issue with Irish and Scottish Government Ministers in the past few months, and our officials have considered the available options. However, as was reflected in earlier remarks, all jurisdictions have faced similar challenges. There is a clear consensus that contributions should be sought at the appropriate stage.”
“I will pick up my remarks from where I left off earlier. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 creates new clause 12A, which addresses the matter of seeking financial contributions from institutions. We are confident that the House fully recognises and supports the principle that those who are deemed responsible should contribute to a financial redress scheme. We are mindful of the experiences in other jurisdictions in securing contributions from institutions and from Whitehall. We have engaged with the Secretary of State and the Treasury in London in order to seek a meaningful contribution to the redress scheme, given the period of direct rule from 1973 onwards. Those discussions have not resulted in a contribution to date, which is extremely disappointing. As a result, the scheme will be funded from the Executive's block grant.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.”
“While we hope that that provision will never have to be used, it creates an important role for the House, which we hope that Members will endorse. <BR /> <BR />Deputy Speaker, if you do not mind, I will stop there.”
“It is important to remember that the inquiry panel plays a pivotal role in the investigation, and we must ensure that it is afforded the independence necessary to carry out its work effectively. It must have the confidence of the majority of victims and survivors, which is why it is best for the inquiry to exercise that power. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 9 relates to clause 11. That departmental amendment reflects the evidence presented by the Committee, in that Ministers must make an oral statement in the House in the event that they notify the chairperson that they intend to suspend the inquiry in line with the provision in subsection 1 of the clause. An oral statement would clarify to the House the reason for such a suspension and provide greater democratic accountability.”
“Related amendments to support that change — amendment No 18 to clause 22, amendment No 19 to clause 25 and amendments Nos 23 and 24 to clause 29 — have been tabled by the Department. Those additional amendments will ensure that there is consistency and clarity across the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8, which was tabled by the Committee, relates to clause 10 of the Bill. We consider that that amendment will provide an opportunity for the chairperson's decision about the membership of the advisory panel to be informed by the wider range of experience available in the inquiry panel, which we welcome. We heard strong support for the advisory panel during the evidence sessions. However, we are also mindful that that is a matter for the inquiry panel to consider.”
“Again, during the evidence sessions, the Committee and other contributors expressed strong views that a multidisciplinary inquiry panel would better support the inquiry chairperson and bring a greater breadth of expertise to that complex and sensitive area of investigation. We have listened carefully to those views and, in recognition of them, tabled amendment No 4, which will make sure that the inquiry panel consists of a chair and at least one additional panel member. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 5 to 7 relate to clause 9 and were tabled by the Committee. They replace the term "assessors" with "expert advisers". We are content with that amendment and understand the Committee's view that that better reflects the role encompassed by individuals who will provide specialist advice and expertise in the inquiry.”
“We have listened carefully to survivors and to the Committee on the issue and understand the importance of the information and accept its presence in clause 2. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 has been tabled by the Department. It relates to the "relevant persons" as defined in clause 4 of the Bill. It seeks to make clear that the experiences of those who became pregnant while resident in a workhouse are within the scope of the inquiry. That was mentioned by Paula and others, who felt that including that was very important. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 4. The Bill as introduced provided for either a single chairperson or a chairperson with one or more panel members.”
“The amendment helps to provide certainty and time for the consultation. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 2. We recognise that the Committee's proposed amendment seeks to specify categories such as private hospitals, clergy and businesses in relation to other persons within the Bill. To reassure the House, the Bill, as introduced, is already sufficiently flexible to include adoption agencies, baby homes, private hospitals, private nursing homes, cross-border transfers, either as a pathway in practice of a prescribed institution, or as another institution. However, we recognise that the amendment will provide further assurance and clarity on the types of institutions that the inquiry can include within its investigation.”
“I thank all Members who have so far contributed to the debate, spoken of personal experiences and made the debate as reflective as it could possibly be. So, thank you for your contributions. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 requires that the terms of reference for the inquiry be published no later than six months after the Bill becomes an Act. We consider that to be a welcome addition. That sets a clear and reasonable time frame to provide the detailed terms of reference outside the Bill, while allowing time for consideration of the truth recovery independent panel's report and for the chairperson to be consulted, which is required by the legislation. I am sure that we all agree that victims and survivors, as was mentioned, have waited far too long to get to this point, and six months is an appropriate upper time limit.”
“Finally, place on record our appreciation to the Committee, its Chairperson and members, its officials and the Bill Office for the constructive and thoughtful way in which they engaged with the Executive on this legislation, for the manner in which the Committee conducted its scrutiny and evidence sessions and for its willingness to fit in extra sessions. I thank you for the comments about our officials, and we reiterate our thanks to them as they have been exceptional throughout the process. <BR /> <BR />I will now turn to the business at hand and the amendments that relate to the inquiry. A total of 24 tabled amendments relate to the inquiry, and the Department and Executive have considered them carefully. I will consider each amendment and speak to all of them, outlining our position and our reasoning.”
“<BR /> <BR />First, and most importantly, I thank all the victims and survivors who campaigned and contributed to the process. That includes all of those who, many years ago, started the Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice group. Secondly, we extend our sincere thanks to all who contributed and participated in the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum and the Committee evidence process. We are pleased that many survivors are able to join us here in person, but there are many who are watching online.”
“<BR /> <BR />For many, this moment has taken a lifetime, and some are no longer here to see it, which places a clear responsibility on all of us to get this right. Today is important, but it is not the end. We must recognise not only the suffering that has been endured but the remarkable courage that has been shown by survivors. This is about lives that were interrupted and a truth that has long been denied. Today's debate is about amendments, and the Final Stage debate will be an opportunity to reflect on the legislation and all those who got us to this point. However, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to take a few moments to acknowledge those who, by their participation and scrutiny, helped to make the Committee Stage such a meaningful process.”
“Yes, thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to interject if we need to take a break. That is absolutely fine. <BR /> <BR />This is a significant moment. The issues addressed in the Bill reflect a shameful part of our past. Today marks an important step in acknowledging the stigma, trauma and loss of identity that has been endured by victims and survivors. While we cannot undo the harm or restore the years that have been lost, we can make sure that what was once hidden is now brought into the light with honesty and dignity. The Bill is not only about systems or records; it is about restoring dignity. It is about acknowledging the truth and finally hearing those voices.”
“Tá pobal na Gaeilge ag fás leis, agus tá fuinneamh agus dóchas ann. Ina theannta sin, tá sé réidh le páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht ar an athrú bhunreachtúil ar an oileán seo. Molaim Róisín as dul i gceann an taighde seo agus as a chur i gcrích. Tá mé ag dúil go mór leis an tuairisc a léamh agus leis na torthaí a phlé. <BR /> <BR />Is linn uilig an teanga. Ceanglaíonn sí den tír muid, ó thaobh staire agus cultúir de, inár logainmneacha agus inár sloinnte. Cruthaíonn sí an domhan mórthimpeall orainn. Mhúnlaigh an Ghaeilge an stair againn; tá an saol san am i láthair á mhúnlú aici, agus déanfaidh sí amhlaidh san am atá romhainn. Is linne uilig an Ghaeilge. Is linne uilig Éire nua athaontaithe.”
“Seolfar tionscadal taighde in Ollscoil na Banríona inniu, dar teideal Éire aontaithe: Deis chlaochlaitheach don Ghaeilge agus don Ghaeltacht. Tharla go bhfuil práinn agus fuinneamh leis an díospóireacht ar athaontú na hÉireann, tá tábhacht ar leith le tionscadail taighde den chineál sin, nó is ar a leithéid de thaighde a thógfar an Éire nua. <BR /> <BR />Tá an tionscadal taighde seo thar a bheith ábhartha, nó chíonn muid an bealach a bhfuil an Ghaeilge ag dul agus go bhfuil an Ghaelscolaíocht ag fás léi. Lena chois sin, is léir ó fhigiúirí an daonáirimh an méadú atá ag teacht ar líon na nGaelgeoirí ar fud an oileáin. Tá ár dteanga ag dul chun cinn in ainneoin na n-ionsaithe atá á ndéanamh uirthi sna Sé Chontae agus sa tSeomra seo, in ainneoin an bhéalghrá a thugtar di sna Sé Chontae is Fiche agus in ainneoin ghéarchéim na nGaeltachtaí.”
“Their courageous fight for truth has been inspirational for many families who have suffered at the hands of the British Army and other state actors. They kept going and cleared Margaret, David, John, Paddy and Father Noel's names.”
“The British Government's approach to legacy is disgraceful. It is an attempt to pull the shutter down on other families, close off pathways to truth and justice and shield their forces from accountability. That is not acceptable. Any legacy process or legislation has to command the full confidence of families and be article 2-compliant. Sinn Féin will oppose any shambolic legislation that gives cover and protection to state forces that have committed human rights abuses, including the murder of Irish citizens. <BR /> <BR />Families deserve better. They deserve truth; they deserve justice; and they deserve to be heard. I commend the Springhill families, who, for 54 years, stood firm, fought tooth and nail and refused to give up.”
“I have sat in rooms with the Springhill families on many occasions, and I was honoured to sit with them in the courtroom last week. For 50 years, they have shown dignity, resilience and determination. They never gave up. They fought to have their loved ones' names vindicated, and they have done that. The verdict will not bring Margaret, David, John, Paddy or Father Noel back. It will not undo the years of loss and hurt, but it matters that the truth is heard and that those families refused to be silenced. It matters that their perseverance has brought us to this point. <BR /> <BR />The Springhill/Westrock killings stand as a stark example of the harm and brutality inflicted during the Troubles by British state forces and of the long struggle that is needed to secure accountability.”
“On Thursday, we heard the findings of the inquest on the Springhill massacre. After 54 years, families heard an acknowledgement of the truth, which was that Margaret Gargan, aged 13; David McCafferty, aged 15; John Dougal, aged 16; Paddy Butler, aged 38; and Father Noel Fitzpatrick posed no threat; in fact, they were trying to go to the aid of their community and help. The families heard that the actions of the British Army were unjustified; that control was lost; and that unreasonable and excessive force was used. <BR /> <BR />The inquest confirmed what the community and the people in Springhill and Westrock have always known: citizens were deliberately targeted and killed, and that was followed by a concerted effort from the very top to conceal the truth.”
“Why do you not bring those proposals forward for the other sectors? The Bill is about a plan for Irish-medium education. If you want one for other sectors, bring it forward.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I do not understand how it is discriminatory to ask that a workforce, including child psychologists and speech and language therapists, be planned for, particularly when it comes to children with SEN. Is it not discriminatory not to plan ahead and make sure that those people are in place for children coming through Irish-medium education?”
“Is cuid ríthábhachtach dár gcóras oideachais í atá ag fás léi, agus a bhfuil cothrom na Féinne tuillte aici. Mar sin de, tacaím leis an Bhille, agus impím ar Chomhaltaí tacú leis chomh maith.”