Official Report: Monday 23 June 2025

Mr Speaker: I inform Members that the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill received Royal Assent on 18 June. It will be known as the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is chapter 2.

Mr Speaker: I have received notification from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that, due to unforeseen circumstances, they are unable to respond to questions for oral answer this afternoon. The Business Committee will be asked to reschedule the Executive Office Question Time slot when it meets tomorrow. However, in order to allow business to continue until 2.45 pm, when we will take questions to the Minister for Infrastructure, a motion has been added to a revised Order Paper to suspend Standing Order 20(1). That motion will be taken after Members' statements.

Ms Finnegan: I highlight my call on the Department of Health to investigate the possibility of replicating the pay-related social insurance (PRSI) scheme in the South for those in the North who suffer from medical hair loss.

Whilst we are all aware of the pressures that our public services face, brought on by over a decade of savage austerity policies from Westminster, we should recognise the devastating impact that medical hair loss can have on a person's confidence, mental health and overall quality of life.

In the South, if a person suffers from a medical condition such as alopecia or hair loss brought on by chemotherapy, their GP can sign a PRSI health certificate that allows them to claim up to €500 towards the cost of a wig, hairpiece or scalp treatment. Stress can have a major impact on hair loss, so the support would benefit those who already suffer hair loss from a medical condition.

The scheme provides funding to patients who have lost their hair through illness, including alopecia, and cancer treatments to pay for wigs, hairpieces and scalp treatments with a specialist of their choice. I tabled a motion at council level, as I found it astounding that patients in the North are forced to pay so much for a hairpiece or face a lengthy waiting list for a wig.

The reasons that were given previously by the Department for its decision not to support a contribution scheme for the care of individuals with medical hair loss are extremely poor, full of unsubstantiated assumptions and a remarkable lack of empathy. As someone who lives and works in a border community, it further highlights the nonsensical nature of partition, because patients who live minutes away from each other cannot access the same equality of healthcare. Therefore, I have again written to the Department of Health to urge it to look into the possibility of introducing such a scheme so that men and women in the North have the same sense of dignity and equality of care that is offered to those in the South so that they can live their lives comfortably and confidently.

Mr Frew: I thank the Speaker for calling me to make a Member's statement about my public consultation on the Bill that I propose to introduce on an individual statutory duty of candour. It is very important to me, but I believe that it is also very important to the people of Northern Ireland. Over the past weeks and months, we have seen the number of stories that have broken about scandals in our health service. I think of the bullying and harassment of staff, the scandals around care and neglect, the mistakes and the attempted cover-ups. A time will have to come when that practice stops. I believe that an individual statutory duty of candour is incredibly important to give people the confidence that their health service works for and protects them when they need it most.

It is critical that the Minister introduces legislation, but, in the absence of that, I will introduce my private Member's Bill. I believe that I have the support of the House to do so, but it does not have to be like that. The Minister of Health can bring forward his own legislation, which we would support, so that the people whom we serve will be best protected in healthcare settings. I believe that it is a right for our people and that the vast majority of people who work and practise in our healthcare settings deserve and want an individual statutory duty of candour. I will pursue that to the very end so that they get it.

Mr Donnelly: On Saturday, I was delighted to attend Learning Disability Pride 2025 in Carrickfergus, in my constituency of East Antrim. The day was filled with creativity, joy and community spirit. It was a vibrant and inclusive occasion, celebrating individuals with learning disabilities and raising awareness across the wider community. I pay tribute to the organisers and everyone who took part in delivering such a positive, uplifting and thoroughly enjoyable event.

The day began with a spectacular carnival parade, which set off from Carrickfergus Rangers Football Club and made its way along the seafront to the castle. The streets were alive with music, dancing and laughter, as schools, community groups and organisations, such as Access Employment Ltd (AEL), Mencap, the Greenisland Bears and many more, proudly took part. The creativity shown by the costumes, performances and displays was a true reflection of the energy and talent in our learning disability community.

As the celebrations carried on into the afternoon, the harbour car park came alive with vibrant activity. Uplifting performances by members of the local learning disability community were followed by live music from the host, Q Radio's Amy McGuckin. A colourful array of local food and craft stalls also added to the festival atmosphere. The weather was with us, and the energy was infectious, creating lasting memories for all who attended. The day's programme featured many inspiring moments. We were privileged to hear the Hill Croft School's Makaton choir perform, listen to Caleb from Caleb's Cause deliver a heartfelt, specially written poem and welcome the official ambassador for the event, the model and advocate Kate Grant, who made history as the first model with Down's Syndrome to win an international beauty title.

Beyond the celebrations, the event also shone a light on the extraordinary work being done by so many organisations to support people with learning disabilities to live rich, fulfilling and independent lives. It was a pleasure to meet some of them on the day, including AEL, which provides vital training and employment opportunities, and Bears FC, whose 60 players train regularly and compete in a dedicated league, offering not only sport but friendship, confidence and community. A particular highlight of the afternoon was the surprise visit from the Red Arrows, captivating the crowds as they soared across Carrickfergus in a flawless diamond formation, trailing colourful smoke across a bright blue sky. This remarkable event has grown each year in size, ambition and impact, and I have no doubt that it will continue to go from strength to strength. The event is inclusion in action and a shining example of what our communities can achieve when we come together.

I place on record my sincere thanks and congratulations to the Learning Disability Pride organisers for their dedication in bringing this uplifting celebration to Carrickfergus once again.

Mr Beattie: I am getting an increasing amount of correspondence from individuals who are concerned about our justice system. I cannot mention them all, but I want to mention one that I think is important. It is the case of convicted murderer James Meehan. Convicted in 2009 for the murder of Jim McFadden in Londonderry, he absconded while on bail but was caught again and sentenced to 14 years in prison. In 2022, he absconded again while on day release and was at large for 16 months in the Irish Republic. He then went on a lengthy legal battle. Everybody knew where he was; everybody knew his address, but he remained at large. When we finally got him back to prison, he was sentenced to an extra nine months. It is ridiculous. The lesson learned is: do not let them out if they are going to do a runner. Do not think it for one minute. In December 2024, on pre-release, he disappeared again, and he is still at large. The Gardai know where he is, and the PSNI knows where he is. He is in Kells in County Meath, and nobody is going to feel his collar and stick him in jail. His victim's family in Londonderry are suffering unbelievably because the murderer of their father is still at large and nothing can be done to put him behind bars. The reality is that he should never have been out on day release in the first place. It should have been, "One strike and you are out". Danielle Bradley and her sister witnessed the murder of their father, and they want justice. This guy, when he is returned to prison, needs to get more than a paltry number of months to serve. It is truly ridiculous.

It is time, if we can, in this place to start putting the victims first and not the perpetrators. The moment that James Meehan proved himself to be an individual who would abscond as soon he was given time to do that, we should have said no. It is not the Prison Service's fault; it adheres to legislation. We need to change the legislation. When he disappeared the second time, absent for 16 months, we should have really taken note of this individual and never let him out the door again so that he served his full sentence. In fact, absconding should have been an aggravating factor. My thoughts remain with the family of Jim McFadden: Danielle, her sister and her mother. They now live without a father, and this man goes to the pub at large, and we do nothing about it.

Ms Hunter: I rise to make a Member's statement about the website Tattle Life and the impact that it has had on the mental well-being of people in Northern Ireland. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare an interest as a paid consultant for an AI firm providing advice on the ethics of AI. Obviously, this statement is not about AI but about online harm.

This is a very topical issue, and I wish to talk about online harms, libel and slander and how they have had a real-life impact. No website is worse for that action — it is infamous — than Tattle Life. I want to raise in the House the issue of a brave couple from Northern Ireland, Neil and Donna Sands, who became the victims of a very modern kind of abuse: tech-facilitated harassment on that website.

They were harassed, ridiculed and stalked online by strangers hiding behind fake usernames, and that was fuelled by a website designed to monetise gossip and human suffering — a website built on toxicity and a culture of cruelty.

Many of us had never heard of the website until last week, but, sadly, many of us, as public figures, feature on it as well. However, for the Sands family, it has been their living nightmare for years. Over 45 pages of anonymous abuse posted about them and completely false — false claims, personal details and threats. One post chillingly read:

It was not just idle gossip; it was targeted harassment. It was libellous. It was slander. It happened online but had real consequences offline. Donna Sands said that it pushed her to breaking point, and that is the reality of tech-facilitated abuse.

The founder of the horrific, bullying website was making over £320,000 a year in ad revenue, profiting directly from the destruction of other people's reputations. It is a site where anonymous trolls can target people with lies, accuse them of crimes and infidelity and tarnish their overall reputation. The site is thought to have generated over £1·8 million in profit. However, last week, something historic happened in Northern Ireland: the Sands couple won a defamation case worth £300,000 — the largest amount ever awarded in Northern Ireland. A site once seen as untouchable was finally held accountable. That is justice, but it came far too late and at far too great a cost. It needs to be a wake-up call to those who find joy in anonymously putting down others online that they will be held accountable and that just because the abuse is online does not mean that it will be tolerated.

Let us not wait for another family to be torn apart by a website such as Tattle Life. Let the Sands case not be just a headline. Let it be a turning point when Northern Ireland says, "Enough is enough". I thank Neil and Donna for their bravery in taking this awful case to court and showing that we need to build an internet that protects people and does not profit from their pain.

Mr Sheehan: Bhí Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh ó Kneecap os comhair Chúirt Dúiche Westminster faoin Terrorism Act an tseachtain seo caite. Cúis imní dúinn uilig an cúiseamh éagórach sin. Sheas Feisirí de chuid Shinn Féin i gcuideachta na gcéadta eile taobh amuigh den chúirt le tacaíocht a thabhairt do Liam Óg.

Is cinedhíothú é an rud atá ag tarlú in Gaza, agus ina ainneoin sin, tá Rialtas na Breataine ag coinneáil leis ag soláthar arm agus tacaíocht mhíleata do Iosrael, soláthar a fhágas go bhfuil sé comhpháirteach i gcearta an duine agus an dlí idirnáisiúnta a shárú. Ach tá Liam Óg, ar ceoltóir é, tá sin á chúiseamh as sceimhlitheoireacht as labhairt amach i gcoinne na gcoireanna sin. Netanyahu is cóir bheith os comhair na cúirte, chan Kneecap.

Tá muinitir na hÉireann ag seasamh go diongbháilte i gcoinne na gcoireanna atá Iosrael a dhéanamh in Gaza, ar an Bhruach Thiar agus ar fud an Mheánoirthir. Níl sa chás i gcoinne Liam Óig ach bealach le hiúl na ndaoine a thógáil den fhíorchoir. Cúis náire é nár cuireadh ateangaire ar fáil do Liam Óg. De réir cosúlachta, ní raibh teacht ag an bhreitheamh ar ateangaire. Seasaímid le Kneecap; seasaímid leis an fhírinne; seasaímid leis an cheartas.

Saoirse don Phalaistín. Lig saor Mo Chara.

Mr Dunne: Today, I pay tribute to Mr Alex Jones from Bangor, who sadly passed away at the weekend. Alex was an incredible character and a much-loved personality. His personality was truly infectious to all who knew and loved him. He was a proud chairman of the Somme Memorial Flute Band in Bangor. He was heavily involved in his beloved local football club, Bryansburn Rangers Football Club, and, as an ex-serviceman, was also a proud member of the Bangor branch of the Royal British Legion and much more. He had many friends in the Bangor and north Down area, across Northern Ireland, in Scotland and beyond. I express my sympathies to his wife, Mandy, and his sons, Scott and Kristopher. Alex was a great personality and will, indeed, be missed by so many across the land.

I also pay tribute to Mr Robin Masefield CBE. Many of you will have heard the name. He was a distinguished civil servant who committed a lot of his time and many years to service.

When he retired, he became known as "Mr Helen's Bay". He was a passionate community champion in his beloved Helen's Bay, where he lived, through his work as the secretary of the Helen's Bay and Crawfordsburn Residents Association over many years. He was committed and a real community champion. He was a highly intelligent man who was never afraid to roll up his sleeves and get involved in community life. He was involved in the u3a and in Holywood Shared Town. He was also an accomplished author, penning many books, particularly of local historical interest, including books on the history of Palace Barracks, on the 150th anniversary of the railway between Holywood and Bangor, on Grey Point Fort and on many other local subjects that he championed and for which he was a proud campaigner.

I extend my sympathies to his wife, Rosemary, and his wider family circle. Robin Masefield will always be remembered fondly across North Down and beyond.

Ms Mulholland: I mark a significant milestone for a charity that has had a profound impact on the lives of children and families right across Northern Ireland, as Action for Children celebrates 25 years of delivering vital services here. That is a quarter of a century of dedication, care and advocacy being provided to some of our most vulnerable children and young people.

Action for Children was founded in London in 1869 and has grown to be one of the largest voluntary providers of children's services in the UK. In Northern Ireland since 2000, it has provided practical and emotional support to over 15,000 young people and their families every single year through more than 20 services spread across our communities. Action for Children's vision is powerful and simple, and it is that every child and young person will have a safe and happy childhood, as well as be given the foundations needed in order to thrive. That vision drives its work. It steps in early and offers support before families and young people reach crisis point. We know how important early intervention is, and Action for Children has been at the forefront of that mission for the past 25 years.

Its services are diverse and far-reaching, being delivered through family support hubs, Sure Start centres, early intervention services and young carers programmes. It supports families by offering an extra little bit of help, and it does so with compassion. It provides specialist services for young people who are at risk of experiencing homelessness, including through providing floating support in Omagh and in County Fermanagh and supported accommodation that helps young adults aged 16 to 24 to build the life skills that they need to help them manage their tenancy and move towards independence. Through its fostering, it finds safe, loving homes for children and young people who have faced an incredibly difficult start in life.

What makes Action for Children stand out, particularly for me, having engaged with it extensively, is its deep commitment not just to service delivery but to lasting change. It works to develop long-term solutions to the challenges that children and young people face and ensures that their voices and experiences shape the decisions that affect their lives, whether on policy, legislation or services. I am sure that every Member will have received at some point over the years a briefing from Action for Children.

To mark its 25th anniversary in Northern Ireland, it will be hosting tea parties in every community in which it works. Those tea parties will celebrate the difference that the charity has made over the past quarter of a century by bringing together children, young people, families, and community and statutory partners. They will also acknowledge the ongoing challenges that we in the Chamber cannot ignore and that we have heard so much about, namely that one in four children in Northern Ireland continues to grow up in poverty and that homelessness amongst young people is increasing. I therefore commend Action for Children for its 25 years of outstanding service, and I wish it continued strength in its vital work.

Mr Gildernew: A chairde, rinne muid Lá Domhanda na dTeifeach a cheiliúradh an Aoine seo caite. Mar sin de, ná bíodh aon amhras ann: tá fáilte roimh theifigh anseo. Níl le déanamh againn ach smaoineamh ar stair na himirce in Éirinn, ar na daoine sin a d'fhág Éire in aimsir an Drochshaoil ar na daoine sin a d'fhág Éire de dheasca coimhlintí, agus ar an mhuintir óga atá ag fágáil na hÉireann inniu le saol is fearr a dhéanamh dóibh féin thar lear lena thuigbheáil nach bhfuil an ceart againn an deis sin a cheilt orthu sin ar mhaith leo saol úr a dhéanamh dóibh féin as teacht anseo.

A chairde

, the Irish diaspora is everywhere. Irish bars and GAA clubs function in every corner of the globe. Thig daoine go hÉirinn as na cúiseanna céanna ar fhág na hÉireannagh í. Ní lú an daonnacht s'acu ná ár ndaonnacht féin; tá a scéal-san lán chomh bailí lenár scéal féin.

Political and community leaders, a chairde

, must respond with unity, urgency and moral clarity to the recent abhorrent attacks on immigrants, refugees and ethnic minorities. Such attacks must stop, and they must be condemned without equivocation.

Multiculturalism is not a threat; it is a strength. In my area of south Tyrone, it enriches our community, broadens our understanding and strengthens the fabric of our society.

Ms Forsythe: I rise today with profound sadness to reflect on last week, which was a sad week for anyone in the United Kingdom who values life. Having imposed laws on abortion in Northern Ireland, campaigners were successful in getting such legislation introduced across England and Wales. The introduction of new clause 1 to the Bill means that abortions that are carried out at home, either through the taking of pills that are purchased online or any other method, will be decriminalised. That clause is not about cases involving a medical diagnosis that affects the mother or the baby; it relates to any abortion for any reason at any point, right up to birth.

DUP MPs voted against the amendment, and others have explained their position, but the Alliance Party's Member of Parliament, who previously signed the amendment, has been silent. You might think that, having added her name to such a significant amendment, she would have found the time to explain her position, especially when she found the time to tweet about virtually every subject that was discussed in Parliament last week, with the singular and notable exception of an amendment that permits late-term abortion up to the point of birth.

On Friday, MPs voted to permit assisted dying in England and Wales. The Bill is significantly different to how it was when it was originally proposed; it is even worse. Judicial involvement in the process has been removed, and legal safeguards have been watered down. The Bill requires the founding principles of the NHS to be altered, all to create a system of private provision that will profit financially from the ending of lives. The Bill does not offer a dignified path for those who are facing the end of life; it opens up the prospect of vulnerable people being coerced to end their lives, without the proper safeguards to stop that from happening.

It was a sad week for anyone who values the protection of life. It was especially dark for some of the weakest, frailest and most vulnerable in society: unborn babies; women who are experiencing crisis pregnancy; people living with a disability; or those with a terminal illness who are at risk from coercion or abuse. We are taught in Proverbs:

We must be a voice for the voiceless in society. There is no ambiguity over our position. The DUP is firmly a pro-life party. I repeat: last week was a sad week for anyone who values the protection of life.

Dr Aiken: Today, many of our councils are marking Armed Forces Week 2025 by raising the Armed Forces Day support flag. I am very pleased to say that, this morning, the flag was raised in Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council by our mayor, Leah Kirkpatrick. While not all councils across our nation show the same respect to serving armed forces personnel and veterans or, indeed, their families, the over 100,000 members of our extended armed forces family, including veterans and their family members, across the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the army and the Royal Air Force, both regular and reserve, appreciate the effort that has been made.

On Saturday, I had the opportunity to attend Northern Ireland Armed Forces Day in Newtownards. The splendid weather was matched by the large crowds of people who thoroughly enjoyed the spectacle and meeting many of the branches of our armed services. Ards and North Down Borough Council should be warmly congratulated for how it organised the event. The support of the PSNI and other emergency services in providing traffic management and first aid was first class. There was, however, one piece of traffic management that they were not responsible for: the magnificent parachute display by the RAF Falcons display team followed by the superlative Red Arrows, which entertained most of Antrim and Carrickfergus on their way in and, as they passed Scrabo Tower, gave an extraordinary display of airmanship and precise aerobatics.

To the thousands who were on the airfield looking up or on the surrounding hills, that was truly the highlight of the day.

I thank the RAF in Northern Ireland, especially Air Marshall Reynolds CB CBE DFC RAF, the air officer commanding Northern Ireland, who gave me, an ex-submariner, the most informed commentary by a helicopter pilot on air displays that anybody could have had. You have probably noticed, Mr Speaker, that I managed to get a bit of the sun as well.

Mrs Guy: I rise to highlight the fact that this is still Cervical Screening Awareness Week, and I encourage every woman or person who receives an invitation for cervical screening to attend that appointment. I took the difficult decision last week to speak of my experience of cervical cancer, so I emphasise again just how important it is for people to attend those appointments. It might literally save your life. The procedures are quick, painless —mostly — and professionally handled. I understand that people will be hesitant about attending the appointments, but I stress again how important it is that they take up that opportunity.

I am aware also that there are concerns about the cervical screening programme. That is understandable in the light of the scandal in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. Therefore, I voice my support for the Ladies with Letters campaign to have a statutory public inquiry into the scandal that happened in the Southern Trust, which impacted on 17,000 women. There were 11 women with precancerous cells, eight with cancer and two who died. That should not be minimised in view of the extent of the scandal and the impact that it has had on those women and their families. We await the outcome from the Health Minister. I emphasise again that I support the call for a statutory public inquiry. I hope that the matter is resolved soon so that those women can move on to the next stage of their campaign and we can bring some accountability to the situation.

Mr Buckley: I speak in support of the Chinook Justice Campaign and the families who have fought for truth and accountability for more than 30 years. On 2 June 1994, a Chinook helicopter crashed into the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland, killing all 29 people on board. Among the passengers were 25 highly trained and dedicated British intelligence service personnel from MI5, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army. The two pilots were members of the United Kingdom special forces and were professionals with exemplary service records. It was the worst single loss of life in the history of the RAF during peacetime.

Beyond the tragedy itself, what followed has left the bereaved families with deep and legitimate concerns about transparency, justice and the treatment of their loved ones' memories. Just two weeks ago, I listened to the testimonies of the family of Detective Chief Superintendent Maurice Neilly, who tragically lost his life on that fateful day. He was a man of impeccable service and character. I pay tribute to his wife, Donna, and son, Mark, and family, who have found a dignified way to search for answers surrounding Maurice's death, a journey that is filled with sorrow and pain.

An initial RAF board of inquiry found the crash to be the result of gross negligence by the pilots. That conclusion has been widely discredited, including by the Mull of Kintyre review conducted by Lord Philip. That review called for the Ministry of Defence to apologise to the families of the pilots. Such an apology is long overdue. That review, however, revealed anonymous concerns from personnel who worked on the Chinooks, including fear and technical faults.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: I welcome the call for justice and hope that the UK Government Armed Forces Minister takes it on board.

Ms Bradshaw: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Speaker: As there are Ayes from all sides of the House and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated.

Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Justice that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question as this is not an opportunity for debate or long-winded introductions.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on a bilateral ministerial meeting held under the auspices of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) on cooperation on criminal justice matters that took place in Dublin on Wednesday 28 May 2025. I represented the Executive at the bilateral meeting with Minister Jim O'Callaghan, the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in Ireland. It was the first IGA ministerial meeting attended by Minister O'Callaghan. It was a productive meeting that provided a welcome opportunity to reaffirm our shared commitment to enhancing practical criminal justice cooperation on the island.

The meeting provided Minister O'Callaghan and me with an opportunity to review progress against the 2023-25 IGA joint work plan. We received updates from each project advisory group (PAG): public protection; support for victims; youth justice; forensic science; and criminal justice and social diversity. The IGA structure contributes to the promotion of good practice in each area. The project advisory groups have developed a range of cross-border initiatives and opportunities for information exchange and shared learning, and I thank all the members, who continue to develop and enhance our cooperation on those important issues. I will provide Members with a summary of the work that has been completed under the 2023-25 joint work plan.

The public protection PAG has collaborated on a range of issues. Of particular note is the development of a shared criminal justice leadership programme that is designed to enhance working relationships, cross-agency collaboration and shared learning. The programme commenced in November 2024 and will be delivered across eight modules with 32 participants from criminal justice organisations in both jurisdictions. A special 21st anniversary edition of the 'Irish Probation Journal' was also published, reflecting on two decades of work, and preparation for the twenty-second edition is under way. Information exchange and engagement is ongoing and includes exchange on areas such as electronic monitoring, development of behaviour interventions and public protection arrangements.

The support for victims PAG remains focused on improving services and experiences for victims and witnesses. Work continues on the alignment of the respective victim and witness charters. Additionally, bilateral exchanges have been used to share learning on the role of registered intermediaries. The exchanges have also covered human trafficking, with a particular focus on child sexual exploitation, and the introduction of the children's sexual offences legal advisers (CSOLA) scheme. Domestic violence remains a focus for the PAG, with regular information exchange. Counterparts in Ireland were particularly interested in the launch of the Power to Change campaign in Northern Ireland earlier this year.

The youth justice PAG has focused on practical cooperation and shared learning between youth justice services. There have been reciprocal visits between youth justice agencies and further collaboration with the Donegal Youth Service. Of particular note during the most recent reporting period is the Stable Lives, Safer Streets initiative, a policy-led research hub funded through the Shared Island initiative and delivered by Queen's University Belfast and the University of Limerick. Minister O'Callaghan and I were privileged to hear from the committed academics who run the initiative, which combines top-down and bottom-up research to improve responses to youth crime, child criminal exploitation and community safety. A particular focus is being placed on child criminal exploitation, with evidence highlighting how many young people are manipulated and exploited into criminal activity through coercion or grooming. This collaborative and evidence-based work is already shaping the future direction of youth justice policy across both jurisdictions.

The completion of an important evaluation of children's diversion forums in Northern Ireland is further improving the Youth Justice Agency's approach to earlier-stage diversion, in partnership with others.

The forensic science PAG has continued to focus on shared learning and practical information exchange, with regular engagement in areas such as handwriting, explosives and elemental glass analysis. The two agencies continue to share information on the new Forensic Science Ireland laboratory facilities in Backweston. That is particularly welcome while the Forensic Science Northern Ireland building project progresses. The recent European Academy of Forensic Science conference, which was hosted by Forensic Science Ireland, was held in May 2025 in Dublin. It was attended by both agencies and offered further opportunities for professional engagement.

The criminal justice and social diversity PAG has progressed cross-border work on hate crime and community inclusion. The PSNI and an Garda Síochána have continued cross-border cooperation in conjunction with the Rio Ferdinand Foundation and have worked closely with the Traveller Mediation Service in border areas. That PAG continues to share learning on engagement with ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ+ community.

The meeting also received an update on the work of the joint agency task force (JATF), which, as Members will be aware, was instituted under the Fresh Start Agreement and is led by senior officers from the PSNI, an Garda Síochána, HMRC and the Irish Revenue Commissioners. The strategic oversight group is obliged to provide a summary report to each IGA ministerial meeting. The most recent update covered the group's seventeenth and eighteenth reports, spanning April 2024 to March 2025. There continues to be high levels of cooperation and operational activity across the six priority areas: rural crime, drugs, financial crime, human trafficking, excise fraud and organised immigration crime. Notably, joint efforts have continued to target mobile organised crime gangs, resulting in the recovery of stolen property, drug seizures and burglary detections. A dedicated cross-border day of action on 6 March 2025 yielded positive operational results for both police services. Cross-border referral systems for trafficking cases, often from an early stage, have proven effective, particularly in relation to children.

I acknowledge the task force's ongoing work in tackling threats in those priority areas. It is evident from the recent reports that the joint agency task force continues to be a highly effective model for tackling cross-border organised crime, with strong practical and strategic collaboration between law enforcement agencies delivering tangible results. Significant seizures of counterfeit cigarettes and illicit alcohol and the dismantling of fuel laundering operations highlight the ongoing work by HMRC and the Irish Revenue Commissioners. Meanwhile, close collaboration between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána national drugs and organised crime bureau has resulted in high-profile drug seizures of a value in excess of £20 million at airports and seaports.

The task force has demonstrated its ability to disrupt organised criminality through intelligence-led enforcement and coordinated operations. Progress has also been made on financial crime, with long-running investigations advancing asset seizure and recovery. Those cases often involve complex civil and criminal litigation. The task force continues to prove itself as an effective vehicle for real-time intelligence sharing and enforcement coordination. Supporting that level of cooperation remains a priority, and I am pleased to update Members on its continued success.

The IGA is an important forum, and the ongoing contribution of those involved is invaluable in ensuring progress across a broad range of issues, which, in turn, continues to improve justice outcomes across this island.

Mr McNulty: Minister, did you discuss with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in the South the possibility of convening a public inquiry into clerical abuse, given its often cross-border nature?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for his question. The Executive have discussed what learning we can take from the investigations that have been developed in the South. The Department of Justice, however, does not lead on clerical abuse. The Executive Office leads on that particular matter for the Executive. I have not directly raised that with my counterpart, but I know that the Executive Office is in constant contact with its counterpart in the South in order to ensure that there is a joined-up approach and that learning on one side will be carried through in order to inform the Executive's response.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): It is clear that good work is being done, which should ensure that past mistakes, where criminals fled across the border to sanctuary, are no longer happening and that the border is no longer a hindrance for law enforcement. Given the nature of crime, it makes sense that there would be shared learning and practical cooperation with the South.

However, will the Minister outline why she is seeking to, in her words, align the victim and witness charters with the Republic rather than the UK?

Mrs Long: It is not an either/or. We are trying to get the best outcome for victims and witnesses across the board. In this particular statement, I am focused on the meeting that we had through the IGA. It is important that there be a consistent approach. Those of you who were involved in the passage of the Justice Bill will know that people often become victims or witnesses because of crime that has a cross-border element, particularly those who live in border communities. It is important that the support for them is reasonably consistent, irrespective of where they seek that support. That is an important point to make. However, we also work with our colleagues in the Home Office. Indeed, I met recently with Minister Jess Phillips, the Minister with responsibility for safeguarding, to discuss how we can ensure that standards that apply, for example, in England also inform our discussions. I do not think that it has to be a choice between the two. We can try to get the best possible outcome for victims and witnesses, and that means being able to share and collaborate, irrespective of borders.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for her statement. She talked about elements of criminal justice and social diversity work and, obviously, cross-border work that is being progressed around hate crime and community inclusion. On the back of racist attacks over the past few weeks and, indeed, the past year, with online misinformation encouraging some of those incidents, what work is being progressed in that area around cross-border collaboration, and did both Ministers discuss what more can be done to take enforcement action against social media companies if they do not take action on misinformation?

Mrs Long: Under the auspices of the IGA, there are a restricted number of work streams, and, obviously, because telecommunications is a reserved matter, it does not form one of them. However, when we have been talking about the wider issues of integration in the community, we have, of course, touched on the influence of social media on people's attitudes and behaviours. Although, in Northern Ireland, we have quite limited powers when it comes to any change to the law, we do, of course, operate within the Home Office structures for dealing with the social media companies. It is an issue. Outside of the IGA structure itself, Minister O'Callaghan was in touch with me last week, concerned about what he could see, but also concerned about the potential for people either to travel to be part of disturbances or to be involved in disturbances in one jurisdiction and still manage to travel to be involved in later disturbances in other jurisdictions. It is also something that the PSNI has been liaising very closely with an Garda Síochána about, because clearly, when those things are being trailed on social media and when some young people find that their posts around violence are being monetised by some of the platforms, there is an incentive for people to get involved. It is important that we track that and monitor that behaviour to try to do work in the prevention space rather than simply the response space.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Will the Minister outline some of the specific successes of the joint agency task force in 2024-25?

Mrs Long: I have already mentioned that the joint agency task force continues to demonstrate really effective collaboration by the various law enforcement agencies. Over the reporting period, there were multiple joint operations with successful outcomes. For example, real-time collaboration between law enforcement on both sides of the border led to successful operations and investigations around drug seizures. In October 2024, a large quantity of cannabis with an estimated value of £8·5 million was recovered following an operation in Dublin, and four individuals were arrested and charged as a result. In March 2025, following searches conducted near Belfast, £6·5 million of drugs was seized and one individual was arrested. There have been many more successes of that kind.

In December 2024, there was an increased focus on targeting cross-border organised retail crime in the run-up to Christmas. Both police services ran organised retail crime operations, which were incorporated into their Christmas road safety campaigns. Then, on 6 March, there was a dedicated cross-border day of action, which formed part of a wider joint agency task force operation, tackling cross-jurisdictional criminality in counties Louth and Armagh. That included high-visibility multi-agency checkpoints and resulted in multiple house searches and several arrests for drug-related offences. Quantities of drugs were also seized.

Other positive outcomes related to human trafficking, illegal moneylending, fraud, fuel smuggling and illicit cigarette manufacture. It is really important to note that, in March, we had over 200 delegates at a cross-border conference on organised crime. Again, that showcased the very close working relationships that are in place and the dedication of the JATF to keeping people safe.

Mr Beattie: I welcome the Minister's statement on cross-border collaboration. It is important. This morning, I made a Member's statement about convicted murderer James Meehan, who is illegally at large in Ireland from a Northern Ireland prison. The gardaí and the PSNI know where he is, but James Meehan is happily enjoying his life and going to the pub with no consequences. Was there any discussion of cutting out that loophole, which undermines our justice system?

Mrs Long: First, I do not want to comment on specific cases. It is not wise for me, as Justice Minister, to do so without having all the information to hand.

Secondly, as I stated, there are six work streams under the auspices of the IGA, but, of course, I meet the Minister on other occasions to have discussions when those issues surface. I am more than happy to raise those issues with him when we are in routine contact. It is important to say, however, that there are structures in place — thankfully, they were not disrupted, as they might have been, with our change in status with regard to the EU — to have people returned from one jurisdiction to another. Those exist under the current agreements. However, when it comes to things such as extradition, those are reserved matters and not matters for the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

Mr Baker: Thank you for your statement, Minister. Can you give details and examples of the collaborative work and shared learning taking place between youth and justice services on the ground locally?

Mrs Long: A number of bits of work are happening, particularly with young people. The youth justice agencies on both sides of the border share learning and have collaborative work streams involving young people in border communities, particularly in the north-west. There has been quite a lot of collaboration in some of the work that has been done with young people in Donegal and Derry. That is one piece of work that they are doing. We are also looking at the learning from our experience in youth justice and how we can share that expertise on a cross-border basis to try to improve overall outcomes for young people, ensure that we can exit young people from the justice system as quickly as possible and minimise their future contact with it. That is a shared objective, I guess, that both jurisdictions have.

Mr Dunne: Will the Minister, first of all, join me in paying tribute to Robin Masefield CBE, former director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, who passed away, sadly, at the weekend?

In her statement, the Minister mentioned human trafficking and people smuggling across the border, which is still rising, unfortunately. What more can be done in the time ahead, Minister?

Mrs Long: I absolutely join you in paying tribute to Sir Robin Masefield, who was the director general of prisons for a considerable period. He has passed away after an illness. It is, indeed, very sad. Those who worked with him found him to be a person of huge thought and integrity and somebody who was very committed to ending reoffending and to rehabilitation in prisons, primarily with a view to keeping people safe, which is always the overriding priority.

On victims and witnesses of human trafficking and exploitation and the cross-border nature of that crime, a number of joint operations have been carried out in order to disrupt cross-border criminal networks. When there are pipelines for certain illegal substances, the same pipelines and connections will be used for all illegal substances. One week, it will be cigarettes, and, another week, it will be something else. Ultimately, people will be involved in those pipelines too, because, for those who are involved in the trafficking of human beings, people are just a commodity like any other. There is no humanity behind it.

In the work that is done, it is important that we are able to support victims and potential victims of trafficking and exploitation. Access to support is available from the Department of Justice for those who have been identified as victims. That is supported and provided through contact with Women's Aid and Migrant Help. The Home Office sets out the provision of that support, because it is a reserved matter. We are delivery partners with the Home Office, but it is important to note, from our strategic oversight group and from the IGA, that cross-border cooperation on the ground among police, revenue commissioners, Border Force and others is part of the overall package of work that gets done. We are not responsible for the immigration part because of its reserved nature, but we are responsible for disrupting the organised crime networks, which are undoubtedly involved in human trafficking and in human misery.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she outline other projects that will be prioritised by the Stable Lives Safer Streets research hub?

Mrs Long: The hub is undertaking additional research projects that link closely to the Youth Justice Agency's corporate plan for 2025-28: research on the gendered experiences and pathways to justice contact for girls in Northern Ireland, which is due to be completed this summer and will inform the Youth Justice Agency's approach to supporting girls in the youth justice system, and an evaluation of the Youth Justice Agency's child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) partnership, which is at the planning stage. Both pieces of research will be of significant value to the Youth Justice Agency and come at no cost to the agency, as they are being delivered by the hub using funding provided by the Shared Island initiative. It is therefore a win-win situation for us to be engaged in the process.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, given how vital it is for all of us to work collectively to end the violence, abuse and harm suffered by women and girls in all our communities, I welcome the support for the project advisory groups' focus on domestic violence and their interest in the Power to Change campaign. Can the Minister outline what further enhanced work and joint initiatives are being progressed with her ministerial counterpart to address gender-based violence across the island?

Mrs Long: As I said, a number of groups undertake work in that space,. The one that is probably key is the Public Protection Advisory Group (PPAG), which remains one of the most proactive groups under the IGA. It is doing work on sexual offender management training, on risk assessment for females and on transition perpetrators. Prisons, police and probation services on both sides of the border could access the workshop. We have also developed a new leadership programme, which has 32 participants, to develop skills in that area, and the shared development goals are an important part of it.

As part of the victims PAG, we are looking at improving services and policies, particularly the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter, which, as the Member knows, are important for those who have been affected by domestic and sexual violence and abuse. We have also been sharing our learning on the children's sexual offences legal adviser (CSOLA) scheme on the impact that that might have. There is a lot of interest in the South in how it might apply similar measures in its court system.

Mr Buckley: Given that the Justice Minister met the Republic of Ireland's Migration Minister, what robust discussions were had on to the number of people arriving in Northern Ireland illegally via the Republic of Ireland? Was she made aware of the number who are arriving via plane, with officials disregarding their identification, and being bussed to Northern Ireland courtesy of the Republic of Ireland Government?

Mrs Long: If the Member does not have the figures to hand, perhaps he should desist from making inflammatory statements about the significance of the issue, because it is really unhelpful to talk about people — any people — in those terms. I met the Justice Minister under the auspices of the IGA. The Justice Minister is my counterpart when it comes to justice matters. When it comes to migration, he is the counterpart of the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper. He is not my counterpart.

With respect, the Member can shake his head all that he wishes, but migration is a reserved matter for the mother of all Parliaments. I am surprised that a unionist

would suggest that it should be otherwise. It is not a devolved matter; it is a reserved matter. However, we are kept informed of the work that is going on between AGS,

the PSNI and Border Force and the work that they are undertaking.

You will appreciate, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, even if others do not, that there is an operational element to this, for which I am not accountable. I understand that Members find this difficult — [Interruption.]

I understand that Members find this difficult, but the separation of powers between politics and operational justice is one of the foundations of a free democracy. Members who seek to encroach on that in the Chamber, week on week, need to give their heads a wobble.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am not averse to Members having a bit of back and forth, but I will knock on the head Members shouting from a sedentary position.

Mrs Dillon: In the conversations on victims and witnesses, particularly on domestic abuse and sexual violence, was there discussion of the giving of character references to those accused of such crimes and of maybe doing something more into line with what they do in the South, where character referees have to take the stand, which means that they are aware of what the person for whom they are giving the character reference has been accused?

Mrs Long: That is not a discussion that we had at this meeting of the IGA, but it is a discussion that I had at a previous meeting with the former Justice Minister, because we are looking at what options are available to us in tightening the rules on good character witness statements and evidence. It is something that we have discussed in the past, but we did not discuss it at this meeting.

Mr Bradley: It is nice to see the Minister back in her place; I hope that she is feeling better.

Will the Minister provide more details on what took place during the cross-border day of action on 6 March this year and outline any positive operational results that the initiative yielded for the PSNI, particularly in relation to the Omagh victims?

Mrs Long: The cross-border day of action was not about the Omagh inquiry, which is a separate matter. It related to the disruption of organised crime gangs. As I set out in my statement, there were drug seizures, house searches and vehicle searches following up from that day of action that allowed AGS and PSNI to recover significant quantities of material from those who were traversing the border during that joined-up action.

The important thing from my perspective is that that good cooperation can lay the foundations for good cooperation at other levels. I hope that that good cooperation will extend to the Irish Government when it comes to the Omagh bombing inquiry, but clearly that is not directly related to the day of action. I have, however, taken the opportunity to raise with Jim O'Callaghan, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach the issue of the Omagh bomb inquiry and the importance of their full and frank cooperation with it to ensure that victims get the truth and clarity that they deserve.

Mr McReynolds: What engagement is taking place between the Minister's Department and the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in Ireland on best practice support for victims and witnesses?

Mrs Long: There are a number of things. First, there is a project advisory group specifically for victims and witnesses. That continues to engage positively on learning and how we can better understand the needs and interests of victims and witnesses through the system. There are common challenges in both jurisdictions, so there are opportunities for us to learn from each other. I have already mentioned the like of the CSOLA scheme that we have introduced here: there is real interest from the South in taking the learning from that scheme and replicating it. We should not always assume that it is for us to learn and for others to lead: sometimes, it can be the other way round.

There has also been an ongoing sharing of progress updates and emerging learning from the implementation of the Gillen review and the O'Malley review, which happened around the same time and largely covered the same issues. In Northern Ireland, we have a panel of registered intermediaries, and the intermediary scheme secretariat has assisted with the development of a similar scheme in the Republic of Ireland. Registered intermediaries continue to provide help, advice and job-shadowing opportunities to their counterparts in the South, which, again, is an example of an area in which we have been able to lead and share learning with others.

The last one is the disclosure of complainants' personal material, which, we know, has been particularly fraught. My officials have been engaging with officials in the South about the disclosure of that material in trial processes, as it is a live issue in both jurisdictions. We are seeking to address that in the victims and witnesses of crime Bill: enhanced protection of complainants' personal information and article 8 rights, balanced against the accused's article 6 rights via judicial oversight.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, in your statement, you referred to support for victims' project advisory groups. My question relates to something that you touched on briefly with respect to the Omagh inquiry. What conversations were had about the Kingsmills case, the disclosure of information more broadly and adequate cooperation?

Mrs Long: We had no discussion about the Kingsmills case at that meeting because it was an update on the progress that is being made for victims and witnesses of contemporary crime. It was not about legacy issues. Legacy issues are generally dealt with through direct engagement between either me or other members of the Executive and the Tánaiste and Taoiseach or the Secretary of State and Prime Minister, rather than through the auspices of the IGA. However, as I said, I had the opportunity to discuss with Minister O'Callaghan the importance of every person who was affected by the Troubles — every victim and every survivor — being able to access truth and justice where that is available and knowing that there is no barrier from either Government or any other body to try to prevent their accessing that truth and justice.

Mr Gaston: Minister, last week, 'The Telegraph' carried a story about Albanian gangs encouraging people to enter the UK illegally via the open border with the Republic. When will the PSNI be a physical presence on the border, like the guards, to prevent those crime gangs exploiting that weakness in our security?

Mrs Long: The PSNI already is on the border as a physical presence, and that is supplemented by the work of the Border Force, which is the UK agency that has responsibility for migration crime. The PSNI can work with AGS to disrupt the organised crime networks that operate throughout these islands exploiting human misery and vulnerable individuals and engaging in human trafficking and modern-day slavery. As I pointed out, the PSNI, along with AGS, has already dealt with cases of coercive and grooming behaviour and trafficking. It is important that it does so with the support of Border Force.

It is an important issue that needs to be addressed so that those who have a right to come and seek asylum or refuge in Northern Ireland and those who have a right to come to Northern Ireland to seek work are able to do so without being descried as "illegal" when, often, that is simply not the case.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald, to move the First Stage of the Bill on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to introduce the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill [NIA 17/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for the regulation of water use; to provide for the regulation of sustainable drainage systems; to make provision in relation to flood prevention and remediation; to make provision in relation to communication with sewers; and for connected purposes.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to introduce the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill [NIA 18/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for the establishment and functions of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council; and for connected purposes.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to introduce the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill [NIA 19/22-27], which is a Bill to make further provision with respect to the administration and financing of public services in Northern Ireland, in particular, measures to provide powers to undertake certain activities, to enable charging for certain activities and to modify arrangements for financial governance.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to introduce the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill [NIA 20/22-27], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to insolvency; and for connected purposes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, are you moving the Agriculture Minister's Bill?

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I can do, if necessary.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You do not need to: he is here. He is behind you. That is excellent timing.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to introduce the Dilapidation Bill [NIA 21/22-27], which is a Bill to confer functions on district councils in connection with the dilapidation of buildings and other land.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should take their ease for a moment.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft statutory instrument (SI), which will amend the Medicines Act 1968 and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 — the "HMRs". The amendments are aimed at enabling all community pharmacies to access hub-and-spoke dispensing of human medicines, should they so wish.

Hub-and-spoke dispensing is a pharmacy model whereby some routine parts of the dispensing process, such as assembling prescriptions, are done in a central hub pharmacy, while patient interactions and final supply occur at spoke pharmacies, allowing staff in those pharmacies to focus on delivering patient-centred services. Typically, there are many spoke pharmacies to one hub. The concept is that the simple, routine aspects of assembling prescriptions can take place on a large scale in a hub that usually makes use of automated processes. Meanwhile, the relationship that patients have with their pharmacist continues at the spoke pharmacies.

Under current legislation, the medicine dispensed in one pharmacy can be sold or supplied only by that pharmacy or another within the same legal entity. The proposed legislative amendments will enable pharmacies belonging to different legal entities to set up hub-and-spoke arrangements. That will unlock the hub-and-spoke dispensing model for smaller pharmacy businesses and level the playing field so that all pharmacy businesses can avail themselves of the model, should they choose to do so. The legislation will also make it possible for dispensing doctors to act as a spoke, giving them access to the knowledge provided by pharmacists in the hub.

Hub-and-spoke arrangements will not be mandatory. Enabling all pharmacies to avail themselves of hub-and-spoke dispensing arrangements, should they choose to do so, aligns with a strategic priority in my Department's community pharmacy strategic plan 2030, which aims to modernise systems for the safe and reliable supply of medicines and professional advice from community pharmacies. The legislative changes, along with other changes such as previous amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations, which provided flexibilities to pharmacists for the dispensing of medicines in their original pack, will help community pharmacies to streamline how they manage the dispensing workload and release capacity in pharmacy teams to undertake more patient-centred services that align with Health and Social Care (HSC) priorities.

A UK-wide public consultation on the proposed changes to the Medicines Act 1968 and the HMRs ran from 16 March to 8 June 2022. The consultation included proposals on two models of hub-and-spoke dispensing. In model 1, the patient presents a prescription to the spoke, and the spoke sends the relevant information to the hub so that it can carry out its agreed dispensing actions. The hub then returns the dispensed medicines to the spoke, which may have further responsibilities to perform, such as providing the patient with advice on the medicine before ultimately supplying it to them. In model 2, a similar pathway is followed whereby a patient presents a prescription to the spoke that is sent to the hub. After the hub assembles and prepares the medicine, the completed order is supplied directly to the patient.

Responses to the consultation proposals raised a number of significant concerns about model 2: its potential to undermine the relationship between pharmacy and patient; risks posed by the sharing of accountability for the supply of medicines; and risks to patient safety. Following further re-engagement with key stakeholders, including the Chief Pharmaceutical Officers of the devolved Administrations and community pharmacy representative organisations, the UK Government propose to proceed with the introduction of hub-and-spoke reforms with amendments that take account of those key stakeholders' views.

The revised proposals will mean the introduction of model 1 only at this stage, with a view to introducing model 2, subject to public consultation, if there is sufficient stakeholder interest once model 1 has bedded in. To ensure patient safety, having taken into consideration the consultation responses, the legislation seeks, through several measures, to enhance the governance, transparency and accountability to patients of participating pharmacies.

First, hub pharmacies and spoke pharmacies will be mandated to enter into written arrangements with one another when adopting that dispensing model. The written arrangements will be a comprehensive agreement on the responsibilities of each pharmacy for the shared dispensing process. Secondly, the spoke must sell, supply or dispense the medicine to the patient, the hub having assembled or part-assembled it under the arrangements. Third, the dispensed medicine must be labelled with the spoke's name and address plus the date on which the hub assembled or part-assembled the medicine, along with the standard information that is required on any dispensing label.

Next, the sharing of patient data between the hub and spoke without the explicit consent of a patient is permitted through an information gateway that requires the spoke to display an appropriate notice to patients and staff at the spoke and the hub to maintain the confidentiality of the patient data. Finally, with the aim of providing full transparency to patients, the spoke is required to display a notice on its premises and its internet presence.

The legislation will not come into operation until 1 October of this year. That helps to provide certainty to the sector and gives time for the Department to consult community pharmacy representatives on any further requirements, which could include guidance or further legislative amendments that may be required to the terms of service and the contractual arrangements for community pharmacists, as set out in the Pharmaceutical Services Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997.

Hub and spoke pharmacies will operate as registered pharmacies under the regulatory oversight and standards of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI), as they currently do. The timescale will allow the PSNI, working in tandem with the General Pharmaceutical Council in Great Britain, to consider how best to ensure that any additional professional guidance is available in time to support safe and compliant implementation of the potential new legal framework.

I am pleased to inform Members that the Health Committee considered the policy intent of the statutory instrument (SI) at its meeting on 28 May, confirming that it was content that the SI be laid in draft form in the Business Office. When the SI was laid in draft, the Committee considered it at its meeting on 12 June and, again, indicated that it was content. It is therefore with the Committee's support that I bring the statutory instrument before the wider Assembly today. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome this opportunity to confirm, as the Minister said, the Health Committee's support for the motion. The legislation enables all community pharmacies and dispensing doctors to access hub-and-spoke dispensing, should they wish to do so. As the Minister outlined, under the current legislation, medicine that is dispensed in one pharmacy can only be sold or supplied by that pharmacy or another within the same legal identity. The regulations will remove barriers to help community pharmacies streamline how they manage the dispensing workload and release capacity in their teams to undertake more patient-centred services.

Department of Health officials briefed the Committee on the draft SI on 29 May 2025. I think that the Minister said it was 28 May, but it was 29 May. The officials provided details of the elements that are to be put in place to ensure accountability, governance and transparency for patients. The Committee noted at that briefing that the consultation was on two different models. Model 1 involves medicines being assembled and returned from the hub to the spoke pharmacy before being supplied to the patient. Model 2 involves the hub pharmacy supplying medicines directly to the patient. Responses from here in the North raised significant concerns about model 2, including the potential of undermining the relationship between pharmacies and patients. Revised proposals mean that only model 1 will be introduced at this stage. Officials informed the Committee that there would be a further public consultation before any introduction of model 2. Officials also committed to working with Community Pharmacy on the next steps for implementation. Again, the Minister has outlined how that will happen. At the meeting on 29 May 2025, the Committee agreed that it was content with the policy intent, and, on 12 June 2025, the Committee recommended that the draft statutory instrument be approved by the Assembly.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the impact that this will have on those in the community pharmacy sector when it comes to streamlining their work. We are all very aware of, and have been lobbied about, the impact of the community pharmacy budget. The sector is struggling with the amount of money that is being provided. There is a large amount of paperwork, and a lot of practices could be revised. Last week, the Minister mentioned e-prescriptions as another way to help, but these regulations are one element of help for the community pharmacy sector. We need to continue to help that sector to do all that it can. The best thing that we could do is to look at the model for paying for medication. There is a better model in Scotland, and other models are available, but it seems that the current model for community pharmacies causes a lot of financial constraint on them. Whilst the regulations are welcome, there is a long distance to go to help the sector. I hope that the Minister will continue to do all that he can to help and support our community pharmacy sector, which is often at the heart of our high streets and all our local communities.

Mr Donnelly: At their core, these regulations aim to deliver greater flexibility and efficiency and to potentially allow for better allocation of clinical capacity in pharmacy services. By enabling medicine assembly to take place centrally in regulated specialised hubs, there is a reasonable expectation that pharmacists in community spoke pharmacies will have more time for direct patient care, medicine optimisation and preventative work. Those areas are increasingly important as we seek to build multidisciplinary approaches to primary care, particularly given the Minister's plans to shift left.

It is also important to recognise the vital role that community pharmacies play in our healthcare system and the increasing pressures that they continue to face. While I am hopeful that these measures will help to alleviate some of those pressures, it is essential that we continue to support the sector and listen carefully to its concerns. Having engaged with the sector, I believe that, of the two options that were presented, the current model, model 1, was the preferred option. During consultation, stakeholders in Northern Ireland expressed significant concerns about model 2, which presented a hub-to-patient approach that removed the traditional community aspect from community pharmacies. While model 1 is the more acceptable option, it is not without its challenges. I therefore urge the Minister and the Department to undertake a full impact assessment of that model.

I understand that, currently, the regulations are optional and that pharmacies are under no obligation to adopt them at this stage, but legitimate concerns remain in the community pharmacy sector. Should that approach become widespread, we should ensure that any system that is adopted is fair, robust and, above all, safe. I make it clear that we should welcome steps forward in improving aspects of our health service and that I recognise the potential benefits of the proposals, but I am also mindful of the valid concerns that have been raised. If we move towards implementation, it is vital that we continue close engagements with pharmacists, Community Pharmacy NI and the wider sector and give serious consideration to the issues that they have raised. Currently, under the existing model, the responsible pharmacist, the spoke pharmacy, has legal and professional responsibility for all medicines supplied to patients. In a hub-and-spoke model, however, that pharmacist may not have directly overseen or verified the assembly of the medicines at the hub. While the final checks will still be made at the spoke, separating assembly from supply introduces additional complexity in determining who is liable for a dispensing error, if one should occur.

Other members and I highlighted those concerns during the Health Committee's scrutiny. In response, the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer from the Department of Health confirmed that, while legislation does not itself specify where the legal responsibility lies, it will rely on the contractual agreements between the hub-and-spoke parties. However, it is not yet clear how consistently or thoroughly those agreements will set out the responsibilities in practice, especially in cases where an error occurs during assembly at the hub. That highlights the need for clear, detailed guidance to ensure that hubs and spokes have shared understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities.

The request for an impact assessment is, I feel, reasonable. Such an assessment would be important in informing the development of detailed guidance in collaboration with the sector, providing pharmacists with confidence that they can remain protected within a framework that reflects the operational realities of hub-and-spoke models. In particular, further clarification is needed on how contractual responsibilities will align with the continuing statutory obligations of the responsible pharmacist under existing regulations.

In conclusion, my understanding is that Community Pharmacy is cautiously supportive of these measures and welcomes this model over the direct hub-to-patient model. The proposals offer an opportunity to modernise aspects of pharmaceutical practice while strengthening the clinical role of community pharmacies. While the regulations are being introduced on an optional basis, the concerns raised are valid and should be addressed. An impact assessment should be carried out to inform clear operational guidance, define lines of responsibility and accountability and address potential operational challenges in order to ensure safe and effective implementation and safeguard the continued safe supply of medicines by community pharmacies.

If we can get this right, we can deliver innovation and support for a sector that is desperately in need, but we can do so only by working in partnership with Community Pharmacy and ensuring that robust protections are firmly in place. It now falls to the Department to provide clear guidance and safeguards that will give pharmacists the confidence to move forward.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Health to conclude and wind on the debate.

Mr Nesbitt: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you. I also thank the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Committee and Mr McGrath for his comments. In the current challenging healthcare climate, all policy options that improve efficiency and potentially increase the level of service to patients are to be welcomed. I believe that these legislative amendments will ensure that local pharmacies will continue to have access to the same commercial model — I stress commercial model — as their counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr Donnelly talked about shifting left, and Mr McGrath talked about the importance of community pharmacists. If we are to achieve the shift left in my vision, it will not just be about GP surgeries; community pharmacies will have a key role to play. I am very keen that we have a new funding model that will enable the shift left: you cannot do that without a new funding model. The underpinning rationale for enabling hub-and-spoke dispensing between different pharmacy businesses, should they choose to do so, is to allow for more efficient dispensing and the freeing up of pharmacists to provide more clinical services. In turn, that could help to alleviate pressures across an already stretched system.

To finish, I turn to the unexpected controversy of when the Committee first dealt with this issue. I believe that I said that it was Thursday 29 May, but the Chair seems to think that it was Wednesday 28 May. I am happy to give way if he wants to clarify.

Mr McGuigan: It was the other way round. You said 28 May, and I said 29 May.

Mr Nesbitt: My bad. It was Thursday 29 May. I beg your pardon. I commend the motion to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am glad that we cleared that up.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Justice to open the debate on the motion.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the Crime and Policing Bill that is progressing through Parliament.

Before I outline the provisions for which I am seeking consent, it may be helpful for Members if I briefly provide some background information. The Bill was introduced in Parliament on 25 February this year. The Bill is wide-ranging and supports the delivery of the UK Government's safer streets mission to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade and to increase public confidence in policing and the wider criminal justice system. It gives police further powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, crime and terrorism. It contains a mix of excepted and reserved matters, some of which apply to or are extended to Northern Ireland, and some transferred matters, which therefore require the Assembly's legislative consent. A number of the measures were included in the previous UK Government's Criminal Justice Bill, which fell in May last year on the calling of the general election.

The Bill has completed its passage through the House of Commons and has been republished a number of times following the addition of amendments. Members should note, however, that the clause numbers contained in the motion relate to the Bill as introduced on 25 February. There have been no amendments, beyond the clause numbering, to any of the measures for which I am seeking consent.

On 15 May, the Executive agreed to a legislative consent motion's being progressed. Since its introduction, my officials have provided oral and written briefings on the Bill to the Committee for Justice. The Committee agreed, through its report to the Assembly that was published on 5 June, to support the motion. I thank Executive colleagues and members of the Committee for their scrutiny, support and timely consideration of the matter.

I will turn now to the 10 measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that I am formally seeking the Assembly's legislative consent to be extended to Northern Ireland. The first measure introduces a new offence of cuckooing, whereby criminals take over the home of another person without that person's consent to use it for specified criminal activity, if certain conditions are met. The creation of that offence will ensure that there is a mechanism through which to prosecute those responsible for that despicable practice and the harm that they cause. It will also improve identification and safeguarding of victims who no longer feel safe in their home.

The second measure relates to the possession of advice or guidance on creating child sexual abuse images — "paedophile manuals", as they are more commonly referred to — by amending the current offence of possession of a paedophile manual that is contained at section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. That offence criminalises the possession of any item that involves advice or guidance about abusing children sexually but explicitly excludes advice or guidance related to pseudo images. The new provision will therefore close a loophole in the offence by extending the definition of the current section 69 offence to capture possession of guidance on producing AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

The third measure relates to the management of sex offenders and aims to strengthen and streamline the current sex offender notification requirements contained at Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The requirements are more commonly referred to as "the sex offenders register", and are automatically applied to offenders who are convicted of or cautioned for a specific sexual offence. They form an essential part of offender risk management and are considered to be an invaluable tool for the police, in conjunction with the other public protection authorities, in managing the risk of sexual harm that an offender presents whilst in the community. Practically, they enable the authorities to know the whereabouts of relevant offenders so that they can respond to any matters arising as quickly as possible.

The fourth measure introduces a new offence of spiking. The Government are repealing sections 22 to 25 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and replacing sections 23 and 24 with a single offence of administering a harmful substance, including by spiking. The aim is to increase public awareness that spiking is illegal and encourage victims to report those incidents to the police.

The fifth measure provides for a new offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm. It replaces the provision in the Online Safety Act 2023 with a broader offence to cover all means by which serious self-harm may be encouraged or assisted, including by any means of communication and any other way.

The sixth measure introduces new offences relating to electronic devices for use in vehicle theft. That criminalises the possession, importation, manufacture, adaptation, supply or offer of supply, and possession of electronic devices such a signal jammers, signal amplifiers and devices that are used to access a vehicle's wiring system to commit a relevant offence such as stealing a vehicle, stealing anything in a vehicle or taking a vehicle without authority.

The seventh measure sets out extensive reforms to the existing confiscation regime for the proceeds of crime under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which aim to improve the process for making confiscation orders, ensure the fairness and transparency of the confiscation regime and optimise the enforcement of confiscation orders.

The eighth measure introduces cost protections in relation to proceeds of crime and civil proceedings for enforcement agencies. That mirrors the approach taken in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which amended the unexplained wealth order provisions.

The ninth measure relates to the implementation of international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. That is a future-proofing measure that ensures that UK agencies can continue to share information with overseas partners to facilitate mutual assistance in criminal investigations.

Finally, the tenth measure extends criminal liability to all instances in which a senior manager commits an offence whilst acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority. That is known as the "identification doctrine reform" and replaces the provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which was limited to economic crime.

That is the summary of the measures for which I am seeking legislative consent today. For completeness, Members may also wish to note that the Bill, at introduction, included at clause 95 a transferred provision to extend access to driving licensing information held by the GB DVLA to police and law enforcement agencies. Due to ongoing policy development with the Home Office, I am not seeking legislative consent for that provision at this stage. I will bring forward at least one further legislative consent motion to cover measures that have been, and are expected to be, added, subject to the approval of the Executive Office Committee and the Justice Committee. That concludes the overview of the Bill.

As Minister of Justice, it is, of course, my preference to legislate for devolved matters through the Assembly. However, the extension of the provisions in my motion will ensure that there is consistency across the UK in tackling certain kinds of criminality. It also provides important safeguards for victims. We know that certain types of organised crime know and recognise no boundaries and so should be handled consistently across every jurisdiction. Utilising this Westminster Bill is the most efficient and expedient way to legislate for these matters and prevents a situation in which Northern Ireland becomes a lacuna that is attractive to organised crime. I hope that the legislative consent motion will have the support of the House, and I look forward to listening to Members as they contribute to the debate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Joanne Bunting, Chair of the Justice Committee.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As you said, I will speak on the motion as Chair of the Committee for Justice. I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession.

The Minister has outlined the purpose and detail of the LCM, so I will focus on the Committee's approach to it. Having initially been advised by the Minister in January that His Majesty's Government intended to introduce the Crime and Policing Bill, and that it was highly likely that she would be seeking the Committee's agreement to the laying of an LCM, we asked the Department to provide us with details of the measures in the Bill that it had been informed or had anticipated would apply to Northern Ireland, including those for which legislative consent may be required. The Committee also requested a clear indication of the time frame for the Bill's introduction. The Department responded by stating that, as details of the Bill had been shared with officials in confidence and were not yet in the public domain, it was unable to share any further information at that time.

On 26 February, the Committee was informed by the Department that the Bill had been introduced in Parliament the previous day. The Committee was asked whether it was content in principle for an LCM to be sought on the transferred matters that extend or apply to Northern Ireland. The Department advised that the current legislative programme means that it would not be possible to bring forward equivalent legislation via an Assembly Bill before the next mandate at the earliest and that any delay in legislating in the areas that the Minister outlined would create lacunas, as she said, thus leaving Northern Ireland more vulnerable to serious and economic crime. It was, therefore, the Department's view that an LCM was the most timely, reasonable and proportionate way to proceed.

At our meeting on 27 February, Committee members expressed concerns about the lack of engagement on the Bill until that point. It was noted that, although the Committee had been informed that the Department could not share certain information with it at that time, the Department had liaised with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) and the PSNI on the Bill. The Committee agreed to invite departmental officials to provide evidence and to answer questions on the Bill at its meeting on 20 March. A number of our questions were answered during that session. We also sought follow-up information on a range of issues, including the Home Office human rights memorandum; the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission advice; details of international law enforcement information-sharing agreements and who has access to the relevant databases; clarification on why the provisions apply only to the GB driving licence database; information on the consideration of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); information on any potential costs to the PSNI of implementing the proposed new measures; details of penalties or sentences that are to be applied to any new offences; and information on any forthcoming regulations in relation to the LCM, including what procedure will be applied.

At its meeting on 1 May, the Committee considered the Department's response, which included the advice that the Department had received from the NIHRC and the details that were requested on new offences, regulations and information-sharing agreements. The Department clarified that provisions in the Bill relate to information that is held under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which does not apply to Northern Ireland. Those provisions, therefore, cannot apply to licences that are issued in Northern Ireland. The Department also set out its view that the provisions in the Bill that relate to registered sex offenders (RSOs) and amendments to the paedophile manual will increase protections for children and are, therefore, in line with the UNCRC.

The Committee engaged further with the Department on matters relating to the notification requirements for the management of sex offenders and access to the DVLA database and sought clarification on whether the reference to "encouraging or assisting serious self-harm" extended to suicide. We also sought information from the PSNI on the parameters or guidelines that will be put in place for the powers under which the police can initiate the removal of an RSO from the requirement for indefinite notification; that is, removing them from the sex offenders register.

The Department and PSNI's responses both advised that the procedures and criteria that will be applied by police when initiating the removal of an RSO will mirror those that are already in place to manage a request for removal from the register by an RSO themselves. The Department's response clarified that it is already an offence under existing legislation to commit an act that is capable of encouraging or assisting another person to take, or to attempt to take, their own life. The Department also informed the Committee that, at that stage, due to ongoing policy development, consent was not being sought on clause 95, which relates to the GB driving licence database.

A further evidence session with departmental officials was held on 29 May. During that session, officials responded to further queries from members about the removal of RSOs from the sex offenders register. Officials also outlined the implications should legislative consent not be approved for the provisions that are outlined in the LCM.

Having considered the written and oral evidence that was received, the Committee agreed on 29 May that it was content with the proposal to extend the provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill to Northern Ireland by way of a legislative consent motion.

I will now speak as Justice spokesperson for the DUP. Of course, we welcome any good legislation that closes gaps and strengthens the hand of law enforcement. We welcome the new offence of cuckooing. It is important that legislation is in place to deal with that rising crime, which is already happening in Northern Ireland. It is entirely wrong that homes, including those of the vulnerable and elderly, are exploited in that manner.

We are delighted to see additional powers against those who would seek to encourage and educate others with regard to child sexual exploitation images and to use AI for such sinister and depraved purposes. Following a visit to the National Crime Agency as a member of the Policing Board, I am aware of the difficulties that currently exist when such images of abuse are discovered, because, of course, as a result of technological advancement, the first thing that enforcement must establish is whether the child in question is real or is, in fact, a generated image. Time spent on that is essentially time lost in potentially saving a child, so a law that ensures that those images, too, are an offence must be welcomed by all right-thinking people and is another step towards the law keeping pace with crime.

In the course of Committee scrutiny on the LCM, we sought several reassurances around various matters relating to registered sex offenders to ensure that the community protections were not diminished and around the self-harm offences, as I outlined earlier, that could also be used by those with sinister ends. However, the irony is not lost on us on this side of the House that the mother of Parliaments wishes to enhance the offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm whilst, deeply regrettably and shamefully, passing far-reaching legislation on the ending of life through abortion and assisted dying legislation. I reiterate that we in the DUP value life and cherish its sanctity and dignity at every stage.

In a previous debate in this place, we discussed the impact and extent of spiking, particularly on young women. To see a stand-alone and modernised offence is also a step forward.

Overall, we in the DUP welcome the LCM and the strengthening that it affords regarding various offences. We support it and commend it to the House.

Mr McNulty: I support the legislative consent motion on crime and policing. As a member of the Justice Committee and the SDLP's spokesperson on Justice, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to a legislative framework that better protects our communities.

The SDLP welcomes the provisions of the LCM as timely, necessary and responsive to the real-world harms that individuals and communities face. Notably, the introduction of a specific offence of spiking is positive. That reflects the growing concern, particularly among young people, around personal safety in nightlife and social settings. It is something that my party colleagues Cara Hunter, Sinéad McLaughlin and Councillor Doire Finn have complained about and campaigned on for some time. It is a shame that it has not been introduced sooner by the Executive.

I also highlight the introduction of a new offence of cuckooing, a deeply exploitative practice where criminals take over the home of a vulnerable person to facilitate drug-dealing or other illegal activity. It is a growing and deeply damaging tactic used by organised crime groups, and the recognition of it in law is overdue and welcome.

I am satisfied that the provisions of the LCM will have a positive impact in the North. It is, however, important to note that the Chief Constable has repeatedly highlighted his serious concerns about officer numbers and overall funding for the police. We have disturbing figures today that only 17% of the police force is from a Catholic, nationalist background. What is going on? Given the new offences and wider ramifications of the LCM, I call on the Minister of Justice to ensure that the Police Service is given sufficient resources to facilitate the new provisions —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Justin.

Mr McNulty: — to ensure that they have the desired impact.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Justin, I ask you to return to the matter of the debate, please.

Mr McNulty: I have finished.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am sorry for interrupting you. That is procedure.

Mr McNulty: That is OK.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister, who gave an outline of what is included in the LCM, and the Chair, Joanne, who gave a breakdown of the scrutiny that the Committee tried to apply within the time frame that it had. As Members have highlighted, the Bill creates new offences for which consent is sought through the LCM, including the cuckooing offence in particular. It also includes guidance on child sex abuse, greater provisions to strengthen the notification requirements for sex offenders on the register and the new offence of spiking. The Committee looked at those issues. As part of our deliberations, we looked at engaging the Human Rights Commission in order to have a local understanding of the provisions. Subsequently, there were questions for the PSNI on the implementation of the provisions once the Bill passes in Westminster.

It is also important to put on record, as we did in the Committee report, that the legislation covers a number of reserved or excepted matters over which the Assembly has no oversight. We cannot properly scrutinise them. The Human Rights Commission here raised concerns about those excepted matters, and I take the opportunity to put those concerns on the record.

Ms Egan: I will put on record some short remarks on the principle of extending the Crime and Policing Bill to Northern Ireland through the legislative consent motion.

The Bill covers a broad range of devolved matters that will play a key role in ensuring public order and enabling deeper safety across our communities. Given the constricted length of the mandate and its shorter accompanying legislative programme, the Bill provides a key opportunity for the Minister and her Department to make progress and provide additional protection for vulnerable people. That includes the integral creation of offences that will protect our children and young people through the criminalisation of possession of advice or guidance about creating child sex abuse images.

Many across the House know that a particular focus of mine is on how we can work across government to tackle violence against women and girls. In that vein, it would be remiss of me not to draw attention to the opportunity that the Bill has created for the Minister to deliver a new stand-alone offence of spiking, of which women and girls make up the majority of victims. Spiking is truly an abhorrent act. Many of us across the Chamber will know someone who has experienced that atrocious crime, yet, at the same time, research by Drinkaware shows that 90% of drink-spiking incidents across the UK go unreported. Alliance is committed to supporting all victims of crime. The creation of the spiking offence will help to reverse that under-reporting and act as a powerful deterrent for those who seek to take advantage of others. The clarity that the offence brings can help us to improve police data collection and increase our understanding of the prevalence of spiking in our clubs, bars, nightlife and even our homes. Such understanding will mean that we can better tackle its occurrence and protect victims.

The Bill will allow the better protection of all our constituents, giving additional tools to police to deal with the outworkings and detection of crime. I hope that all across the Chamber will join Alliance in passing the LCM.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The last Member to speak will be the Minister of Justice to conclude and wind up the debate.

Mrs Long: I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate and thank in particular the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee, who oversaw the scrutiny of the LCM.

I will turn to some of the points that Members raised during the debate, which was constructive. To be clear, any engagement that we had with others, including the PSNI or the Human Rights Commission, was on the same broad terms as with the Committee. Unfortunately, we cannot share the detail of the content of legislation until it is published in Westminster. That is the same courtesy as we would expect to be shown to this House. There is also the issue that things were being added at the last minute of which we were not aware. The Committee may therefore have found itself frustrated that we were briefing that something was in the Bill that was then out of it or that was out and then in. There is a challenge in that regard, which is why it would always be my first preference to introduce legislation here ourselves. That would allow us to have more detailed scrutiny. However, the Bill is a valuable opportunity for us to update the measures, and, as the Committee Chair said, it is important that we take a robust stance on the issues. Many of the criminal offences covered in the Bill, whether that is cuckooing, child sexual abuse or the actions of sexual offenders more generally, deal with some of the most vulnerable victims that we will have to deal with. It is important that we keep pace not just with technology but with what is happening more widely in the criminal space.

I thank Members who highlighted the issue of indefinite notification requirements. The benefit of that provision — this partly answers Mr McNulty's point — is that it will allow the PSNI to look at the lowest-risk offenders and, where it feels that that risk is no longer valid, remove individuals from the register. That allows the PSNI to concentrate its scarce resources on the highest-risk offenders. It is important that it is always about balancing out proportionally where those resources have to go. We all want those high-risk offenders to be the subject of increased scrutiny. The provision will allow the opportunity to do that under an own motion process. There is already a process whereby the offender themselves can ask to be removed from the register, but this will allow the PSNI to initiate a review if it feels that that is appropriate to do so. To be clear, however, that will apply only to category 1 sex offenders — those who are in the lowest risk category — and removal will take place only in those cases where all of the partners are content that the risk is mitigated in other ways.

I know that Members have a particular interest in the issue of spiking. The new clause has the potential to improve police data collection and gain a better understanding of the prevalence of spiking. A number of Members, including my colleague Connie Egan, spoke about the fact that it is an under-reported crime. There is embarrassment, fear of not being believed and the assumption that, if there is not a specific offence to deal with it, it will not be dealt with by the courts. All of those things together can dissuade people from coming forward and reporting. There is an opportunity through this legislation to raise public awareness, deter individuals from engaging in the criminal offence, provide a platform to allow meaningful data to be collated and allow strategic and developmental planning to address that behaviour in future. There is currently no substantive data that will tell us the prevalence of spiking. Given the broad nature of the existing offences, it is hard to measure it. We do not have specific data on spiking, but this will allow us to capture that.

I am not sure that I fully understood Mr McNulty's point about the Executive not doing this. The bottom line is that we are doing it: we are doing it today via the LCM and in the most expeditious manner possible. That is what everybody would want us to do so that this will be available to people in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity.

I hope that, in my introductory remarks and my response to Members' queries, I have shown that the Bill's provisions will not only strengthen the ability of our law enforcement agencies and the courts to tackle serious and organised crime but ensure that we do not fall behind the rest of the UK in our response to the issues. I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Mrs Long: I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion and speak about the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently progressing through Parliament.

The Bill was introduced in Westminster on 30 January 2025. Its overall intention is to create a framework of new, enhanced powers and offences to improve UK border security and to strengthen the asylum and immigration system. The Bill also contains various measures that will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies and the courts to tackle serious and organised crime.

The Bill contains a mix of excepted and reserved measures, some of which apply or are extended to Northern Ireland. There are, however, four matters that are transferred and therefore require legislative consent. In the interests of transparency, Members will wish to note that, as part of the parliamentary process, two revised versions of the Bill have been published since its introduction. That means that some of the clause numbers have changed. Indeed, as the Bill is currently at the House of Lords Committee Stage, I imagine that a further revised version of the Bill will soon be published. Today, I will refer to the clause numbers as set out in the memorandum and motion. Those relate to the Bill as amended in the House of Commons on 19 March 2025. I should emphasise that, whilst revised versions of the Bill have been published, there have been no amendments to any of the measures that require legislative consent today. Apart from the clause numbers, they remain unchanged.

I also want to highlight the fact that the majority of the measures contained in the Bill do not relate to my Department, and I have not been consulted or engaged with on those measures. I am aware that the Home Office Minister wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, but I have not had sight of that correspondence. I understand, however, that none of the measures that are of wider interest to the Executive Office requires legislative consent.

My interest today is in three measures that require legislative consent and that fall within the remit of the Department of Justice and in one further measure that falls to the Department for the Economy. In the interests of expediency and the effective utilisation of Assembly time, it was agreed that I would bring a single legislative consent motion (LCM) to the Assembly on behalf of the Department of Justice and the Department for the Economy. I am therefore pleased to lead on this joint motion.

Turning to the matters in the Bill that engage the legislative consent process, I will now provide an overview of the measures for which I seek the Assembly's legislative consent. The first establishes a framework allowing the Secretary of State for Transport, through the GB Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to share trailer registration information with specific government bodies including the police. It authorises the Secretary of State for Transport to supply trailer registration information to the Home Office and designated law enforcement bodies, including the UK police forces, HM Revenue and Customs and the National Crime Agency. It sets out how information shared under the legislation can be passed on by recipients, such as the Home Office or authorised policing personnel, allowing further disclosure to other public functionaries in the UK or abroad for specified purposes related to policing, criminal investigations, law enforcement purposes and safeguarding national security. The draft legislation ensures that those provisions do not override data protection or investigatory powers laws and clarifies definitions, including who qualifies as an authorised person or officer, and empowers the Secretary of State to define specific policing purposes, through regulations, after consulting the relevant stakeholders, such as police representatives, Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice.

The second is a measure to create two new criminal offences relating to articles for use in serious crime. It includes possession of a specified article that will be used in connection with a serious offence and importing, manufacturing, adapting, supplying or offering to supply a specified article where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the article will be used in any serious offence. The specified articles are defined in the legislation and include vehicle concealments used to transport illicit goods, templates for 3D-printed firearms components, an encapsulator, which is used to fake drugs and tablets, and tablet presses which, again, are used in the supply of illegal drugs.

A serious offence is defined as one that is specified in Part 2 of schedule A to the Serious Crime Act 2007. The associated penalty on summary conviction is imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum, or, on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, a fine or both. The legislation includes a delegated power to allow the Secretary of State to amend the list of specified articles via secondary legislation. There is a requirement to consult the Department of Justice before doing so. Any changes must be considered by Parliament. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 by adding the offences to the criminal lifestyle offences at schedule 5.

The third measure extends the offence of a breach of an interim serious crime prevention order. The extension of that measure to all jurisdictions of the UK is to maintain the integrity of the offence and ensure enforcement. It is the only offence of a breach that engages legislative consent. The associated penalty is on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both, or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, a fine or both.

The final measure falls to the Department for the Economy. The clause deals with the validation of fees that are charged for the UK National Information Centre (UK ENIC) service. The UK ENIC service is the UK's national information centre for the recognition and evaluation of international qualifications and is used by the Department for the Economy's Careers Service.

That concludes the overview of the Bill. As Minister of Justice, my preference is always to legislate for devolved matters through the Assembly. For the measures that fall to the Department of Justice specifically, however, Members will appreciate the very serious nature of the criminality that the clauses aim to deal with. I am hopeful that Members will in this instance agree that the extension of the Westminster Bill to Northern Ireland via legislative consent is the most efficient and expedient way in which to legislate for the matters that are before the House. I hope that the legislative consent motion will have Members' support.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I speak again as Chairman of the Committee for Justice and make the same declaration of interest as I did previously. Once again, the Minister has already explained the purpose and detail of the LCM, so I will focus on the Committee's approach to it and, indeed, the process followed for it.

At its meeting on 1 May 2025, the Committee considered a written paper from the Department of Justice advising of the Bill's introduction and outlining the provisions for which legislative consent would be required. The Department's paper also advised that, as the legislative consent memorandum could not be laid within the time frame that was required under Standing Orders, it was the Department's intention to lay a memorandum under Standing Order 42A(4)(b) in order to ensure that all Members were aware of the Bill. The paper further advised that, in due course, a legislative consent memorandum would be laid and that a legislative consent motion would be tabled, subject to Executive agreement and the views of the Committee. The Committee agreed to request an oral evidence session with departmental officials to discuss the proposal, which was subsequently scheduled for 29 May. A memorandum dated 13 May that advised that consent was not being sought was laid by the Department on 14 May. The memorandum stated:

A legislative consent memorandum was laid and a motion seeking consent was tabled under Standing Order 42A(4)(a) the very next day, however, before any further engagement with the Committee took place. At the Committee meeting on 29 May, departmental officials explained that a memorandum not seeking consent should have been laid under Standing Order 42A(4)(b) around the time that the Committee received the initial briefing on 23 April, so it was laid later than intended, in what officials described as an "administrative error".

Nevertheless, the clock had started on the process before the Committee had received its oral briefing, hence members expressed frustration at the time that was available to scrutinise the LCM. Officials advised that the initial engagement from Westminster had been with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and that the Bill had moved through its legislative stages in Westminster at pace, thus making the legislative consent process particularly challenging. Ultimately, the Committee was informed that the Department did not want to risk laying an LCM when it did, as it was concerned that the Bill might complete its passage and gain Royal Assent before the summer recess period at Westminster.

Committee members, understandably concerned about the LCM process, questioned officials on whether they had had sufficient time to consult partners, as necessary, on the provisions for which legislative consent was being sought. The officials advised that the Department had been able to work through all the points that had been raised and that it was content to proceed with the LCM.

Members also asked officials about the input of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) and whether its views on the compliance of clauses 30 to 33 with article 2 of the Windsor framework were similar to those outlined in the Government's human rights memorandum. The Committee was advised that, as recommended by the NIHRC, the Department had sought an expanded memorandum from the Home Office, with the latter confirming that it had conducted its own article 2 analysis and was content that there was no diminution of rights. The Committee was further advised that the Department had shared that information with the HRC, which had nothing further to add at that time. A written paper from the Department stated:

The Committee questioned the officials on whether the Department or the Assembly would have a role to play in considering the regulations and was advised that the Secretary of State for Transport would have the power to make the regulations and that, although there was no role for the Assembly to play, the Department of Justice would be consulted on them.

I am aware that the Department wrote to the Committee on Friday to advise of an amendment to clause 33(9), which will fall under the scope of this LCM. Although that correspondence was circulated to Members in advance of today's debate, the Committee has, obviously, not had the opportunity to consider it. I therefore cannot speak on the Committee's behalf in respect of that. I do note, however, that the Department has advised that the Minister is satisfied that the amendment will strengthen the clause to make it explicit that the Secretary of State must consult with the DOJ before making regulations.

I return to the oral evidence session on 29 May. The Committee also asked questions regarding the reversal of the evidential burden of proof in relation to articles that are used in serious crime. Officials advised that the articles in question would rarely be used in everyday business. A pill press, for example, is not an item that a person would usually have, and its primary purpose is likely to be associated with criminal activity. A defendant caught with such an item would not be required to prove innocence, but, instead, to provide a plausible explanation as to why they had it. If they were able to do so, the burden of proof would revert to the prosecution. The Department therefore considered that measure to be proportionate for the offences.

The Committee also asked the Committee for the Economy for its views on the provisions that will fall under the remit of the Department for the Economy. Those relate to the validation of fees that are charged in relation to qualifications. The Committee for the Economy advised that, as there will be no material change to the UK National Information Centre's services, it was content with the request for legislative consent for that provision.

Following consideration of the LCM that was laid before the Assembly on 15 May and the evidence that was received at the meeting of 29 May, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposal to extend the provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to Northern Ireland by way of a legislative consent motion.

As the DUP's justice spokesperson, I note that, primarily, the aspects for which the Department is seeking consent relate to serious and organised crime, including measures that are likely related to the potential trafficking, smuggling or production of drugs or components for weapons. We are content to support those measures and the LCM that is before the House.

Mr McNulty: As a member of the Committee for Justice and as the SDLP's spokesperson on justice, I support the legislative consent motion on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The LCM relates to provisions that will strengthen operational cooperation in addressing issues such as trafficking, illegal migration and organised crime. It seeks to equip our justice partners with the necessary tools, while maintaining appropriate safeguards and oversight, and recognises that effective cooperation between agencies is vital in tackling exploitation, trafficking and cross-border criminality.

However, I also take this opportunity to underline something equally important in the wider context of the Bill. The way that we talk about these issues matters. We must be careful to avoid sensationalism or language that dehumanises individuals. I have been deeply concerned at some of the language that I have heard, the deliberate spreading of misinformation and the misleading of people that I have witnessed from lead political parties in the Executive in recent weeks. This is not about vulnerable people fleeing conflict; it about tackling criminals who profit from exploiting those vulnerable people.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Speaker: Actually, will the Member get back to what is in the LCM?

Mr McNulty: Border security and immigration are complex and sensitive topics that affect real people who are often in incredibly vulnerable circumstances. Although the SDLP is content to support the LCM, it believes that it is essential that we approach these matters with a sense of balance, responsibility, sensitivity and respect.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for bringing the LCM to the House. The Chair of the Committee outlined the in-depth scrutiny that we tried to do at the Committee with the devolved provisions that pertain to the LCM. We also tried to engage with the Human Rights Commission and others for advice. There are a number of devolved implications, which the Minister and the Chair outlined. There are also regulations and amendments that have come forward, on which the Committee is still engaging.

I know that the Minister highlighted the fact that the LCM will enhance protections around engaging DOJ, but if clauses 30 to 33 pertain to the DVLA, what engagement will there be with the Infrastructure Minister? That is a concern that we raised, and I know that the Committee will look at that in more detail at Thursday's Committee meeting.

I put on record and highlight the fact that there is a range of excepted matters that do not fall under the Assembly's control. When you look at where the Bill initially came from, you see that it came from the Tory Party in Britain and the Rwanda policy, which is proposed to be repealed and is also a reserved matter. Key aspects of the reserved matters are draconian, and we have concerns about their human rights implications. Again, I highlight the fact that, whilst the LCM process is welcomed, huge swathes of the legislation that will have an impact here are excepted matters, and the Assembly does not have proper scrutiny of and oversight into those and cannot feed into them. We also know through Committee deliberations that the Human Rights Commission here raised concerns, particularly about the compliance of article 2 of the Windsor framework. We know that the Human Rights Commission was going to publish further information and a further detailed report on that aspect of the work. In fairness to the Human Rights Commission, it engaged with the Department. The Department made representations to the Home Office, which said that, under its human rights deliberations, there was nowhere else to go on the matter. However, we still have concerns about that area of work, particularly the impact of article 2 of the Windsor framework.

The Committee and, indeed, my party highlighted concerns about the pace of the Bill. The Department also highlighted those concerns. We were concerned that it was moving at such a pace through Westminster that engagement with key partners to look at the impact of the provisions — reserved and devolved — was limited. I thank the departmental officials for their engagement with the Committee on the concerns and queries that were raised and for trying to answer those as well as they could.

Ms Egan: I put on record my support and that of my Alliance colleagues for the legislative consent motion endorsing the extension of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to Northern Ireland. Whilst it is, of course, preferable to legislate on devolved matters through an Assembly Bill, legislative consent motions have an important role to play in providing a timely and reasonable approach to how we across the Chamber ensure that Northern Ireland has much-needed provisions that deliver for the benefit of the public.

The measures in the Bill that are relevant to the Department of Justice are about enabling more effective interventions to protect UK border security, making it easier for police and defence forces to disrupt and detect those who are engaged in crime. The Bill is incredibly pertinent to national security. Once it becomes law, it is vital that the Department and its operational partners work collectively to ensure its successful implementation. Establishing a framework to allow for the sharing of trailer registration information with specific government bodies is a practical and useful tool for the detection of crime, and the provisions relating to serious crime more broadly expand the legislative apparatus to tackle criminality across the United Kingdom.

Passing the motion will send a clear message from the Assembly to all those who are engaged in criminality that we will do everything that is within our gift as political representatives to prevent and intervene in their activities. Alliance is committed to working collectively to ensure that those who put our communities at risk and exploit vulnerable people for their own gain do not go unchallenged. The principles of the motion will allow the Assembly to protect the people whom we serve. I hope that that is why colleagues across the Chamber will vote positively today.

Mr Gaston: The legislative consent motion covers just nine clauses of a 90-page Bill. Those clauses deal with trailer data, crime prevention orders and qualification fees. However, it completely sidesteps the issue that matters most for Northern Ireland: the open land border with the Irish Republic. Clause 2 empowers the new border security commander to set UK-wide strategic priorities, yet there is no mention — not a single line — about the land border or illegal immigration into Northern Ireland. That omission is not a technical oversight; it is a political failure and a refusal to confront reality. When the Bill was before the Commons, Jim Shannon MP secured assurances from the Minister that the PSNI and the guards would cooperate on border threats. Is the Justice Minister willing to give those same assurances to the House here today? Last week, 'The Irish News' reported that the guards are carrying out bus checks near the border. What equivalent checks and efforts are being made here in Northern Ireland? Traffickers are exploiting that weakness —.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, you, like Mr McNulty, need to get back to addressing the LCM. I know that you would like to expand it a little, but we need to stick to the subject. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will do so, but I highlight a recent article in 'The Telegraph', which exposed how Albanian crime gangs openly advertise a safe route into the UK via Dublin, charging £4,000 per person. When contacted, the PSNI failed to comment. Meanwhile, in Ballymena's G3 area, over 52% of residents have arrived here within the past decade, many via the Republic, bringing sharp demographic change and raising community tensions. The Minister tells us that there is no data —

Mr Speaker: Can we now get back to the —?

Mr Gaston: — to justify concerns about immigration in the area.

Mr Speaker: Can we get back to the LCM, please?

Mr Gaston: Yes —

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Gaston: — Mr Speaker, I will, but I encourage the Minister to look at the 2021 census data. Furthermore, ask yourself this: with no border checks, records or enforcement, how could any other form of data exist?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that there is serious concern about the LCM before us today? It refers only to symptoms and has a singular focus on enforcement; it does not mention root causes, which is what he is referring to. Although there may be enforcement powers, they are so limited in scope that they miss the very obvious question of an open border. We simply do not know the level of illegal immigration that is crossing that border.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. I appreciate the Member's intervention. The problem with the LCM today is that it does not look at the root causes. That is why we have ended up in Northern Ireland with the problems that we have seen over the past number of weeks.

The motion may be limited, but the problem is not: Northern Ireland is being used as a back door into the UK.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Ms Mulholland: Does the Member agree that some of the cause of the problems over the past few weeks has been the people who have actively targeted homes, set fire to homes and rioted on our streets, not just the issue in the LCM?

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, I ask you to ignore that, because, again, it is completely away from what is in the motion, and to try to stick to what is in the motion, please.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Taking your advice, I will close by saying that there is nothing compassionate or liberal about ignoring the issues. The situation is being actively exploited by smugglers, traffickers and criminal gangs. I urge the Minister to act by securing dedicated enforcement funding, insisting on cross-border action and stopping criminal gangs from exploiting our border and communities.

Mrs Long: I thank most of the Members who contributed to the debate today. I will address some of the issues that they raised. It would be helpful if Members did not chunter from a sedentary position. It seems that Mr Buckley is at his most noisy —

Mr Buckley: There you go. Sneering.

Mrs Long: — when his knees are bent. Perhaps he should bend them in different ways —

Mr Buckley: The sneering and laughing Minister.

Mrs Long: — and allow people to speak without interruption.

Mr Speaker: Minister, you sat in another House in which the chuntering here would be whispers.

Mr Gaston: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: You are an experienced and skilled politician —

Mr Buckley: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: — and a very able orator. A little distraction from the sidelines should not be sufficient to put you off your stride. It certainly is not sufficient to put people off their stride at Westminster. I aspire to a House in which we have vibrant discussions and debates —

Mr Buckley: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: — rather than its being like a school class, where everybody sits in absolute silence. Please continue.

Mr Buckley: Hear, hear.

Mrs Long: Mr Speaker, I am not sure where you went to school, but courtesy was taught in my school. People shouting across another when they are speaking is rude.

Mr Buckley: Then stop the sneering remarks.

Mrs Long: It is rude in Parliament, and it is rude in the Assembly.

I wish to return to the issue and move on with what I have to say about Committee engagement.

Miss Hargey: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: Yes, of course.

Miss Hargey: Does the Minister think that language must also be monitored in relation to people's homes being attacked in the past few weeks? Misinformation of a racist nature was used to whip up the crowd, resulting in front living rooms being set on fire, pregnant women having to flee and families having to hide in their lofts from what the PSNI described as racist mobs. Language should be moderate at times when people are being attacked in their home.

Mrs Long: I agree. A rule of thumb is that the more sensitive the issue, the more moderate the language required. Some Members would do well to take account of that in their contributions.

Mr Buckley: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I wish to move on to the matter of Committee engagement, which was raised by the Chair of the Committee. I thank the Chair and Committee members for their work on the LCM. The LCM is limited in nature, and I will address that.

The nature and overall topic of the Bill made initial engagement quite complex because the vast majority of the measures in it are reserved or excepted. I know that Members want to have a debate about immigration, and they are free to do so. The debate on this LCM is not, however, the forum in which to do that, because the LCM is on a reserved matter — immigration — and the only measures for which I need legislative consent are the devolved measures. The boundaries between reserved and excepted matters and devolved matters are clearly established, and I am not responsible for reserved and excepted matters. Members continue to make pointless charges that I should do something about immigration enforcement when I do not have the vires to do so. Border Force is responsible for the enforcement of border law in Northern Ireland, under the direct charge of the Home Office.

Mr Buckley: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: Given that Members are so concerned about illegal immigration, you would expect them to do their homework and to know that.

Mr Buckley: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mrs Long: Mr Speaker, I will not give way to the Member. The Member has plenty to say — [Interruption.]

The Member has had plenty to say while he has been sitting down, and I will certainly not give way to him while he continues to shout. [Inaudible.]

Mrs Long: The Home Office originally wrote the First Minister and deputy First Minister. My Department, because of its limited role in the matter, was not engaged by the Home Office. However, given that no measures falling within the Bill require the consent of the Executive Office, I took the decision to move forward with an LCM for those issues, as I set out in my introductory remarks, that fall within the remit of Justice, recognising that it has only a limited vires in respect of immigration. A further complicating factor was that there was a measure in the Bill that required the consent of the Department for the Economy. My Department agreed that it could use our LCM to progress that.

The Committee received a briefing on 23 April to alert it to the measures in the Bill. A further paper was provided on 22 May, alongside the legislative consent motion and memorandum seeking consent. Departmental officials provided oral evidence to the Committee on 29 May. I note that the Committee's report on the Bill was published on 5 June.

I thank the Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill and its subsequent report, but I understand its frustration, because LCMs always happen at pace and often engage complex and sensitive issues. I was pleased to note that no substantive concerns were raised and that the Committee was content to support my decision to seek Assembly endorsement of those matters that require legislative consent, as opposed to those that are legislated for, rightly, by Westminster.

Why was the memorandum laid the day before the full legislative consent motion? As Members will understand, and as officials have already explained and apologised for to the Committee, that was due to an administrative error. The memorandum should have been laid following the correspondence with the Executive and the Justice Committee on 23 April. I apologise if that frustrated the Committee's work in any way.

The Home Office has overall responsibility for the measures in the wider Bill and for immigration in Northern Ireland, just as it does for immigration in every other part of the UK. The Executive Office has an interest in some measures in the Bill, but none of those requires legislative consent; they are all under the vires of the Home Office as they are excepted or reserved matters. The three measures that I have brought forward fall within the legislative competency of my Department, and the fourth rests with the Department for the Economy.

The Home Office wrote to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. I have therefore engaged with the Home Office in relation only to the measures in the Bill that are within the remit of my Department, rather than on the wider Bill. I note that the Member raised the issue of what the PSNI is doing. This morning, I set out in detail the work of the joint agency task force in disrupting organised crime gangs, which include those who engage in people smuggling. The Policing Board has been working with the PSNI on, in particular, Albanian people smugglers who advertise online.

The Deputy Chair of the Committee asked what engagement we need with the Infrastructure Minister. The clause about sharing trailer registration information is not cross-cutting. It establishes a framework to allow the Secretary of State for Transport, through the GB Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to share trailer and registration information with specific government bodies, including the police. The Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland does not register trailers, including Northern Ireland trailers. The DVLA carries out that function for Northern Ireland trailers that require registration, so there is no cross-cutting element to that part of the legislation.

A wider point has been made today that I should do x, y or z in relation to immigration. Where immigration crime is part of the organised crime disruption process and, for example, things like unexplained wealth orders or other Criminal Finances Act 2017 measures can be deployed, of course they will be used to prevent those who exploit human misery and exploit the vulnerable from being able to profit from that. That falls within the remit of the Department of Justice. Specific immigration laws, which are reserved and excepted matters, do not. They are dealt with at UK level. They are not devolved in Scotland; they are not devolved in Wales; and they are not devolved in Northern Ireland. I cannot do the Home Secretary's job for her any more than she can delve into matters that are devolved to the Assembly. That is why I stand here today, proposing a legislative consent motion to seek the permission of the House for the Home Secretary to take action on the issues for which I have responsibility. I do not have responsibility for the remainder of the Bill. These are the elements for which I have responsibility, and that is why I propose the motion.

I hope that it is clear to Members that the Bill will not only strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies and the courts to tackle serious and organised crime but ensure that we do not fall behind the rest of the UK in our response to those issues. We, as an Assembly, need to take these matters seriously, and it is not helpful, frankly, to level wider narratives about inactivity on the part of the PSNI or, indeed, the DOJ. That undermines public confidence and is unjust in the context of the matter not being devolved and our having no vires to act. Where we do, we have acted, and today provides a strong example of that.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: It is good that reading that out does not come out of the hour and a half for the debate.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind up the debate. As an amendment has been accepted, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Before I call Mr Beattie to open the debate, I remind Members that, as the motion relates to the improvement of sentencing practices in Northern Ireland, they should be mindful of not straying into the topic of specific cases that are the subject of active legal proceedings. Please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. More than that, people must have confidence that our justice system works. It is clear, however, that confidence in our criminal justice system is being eroded daily. Part of the problem, though certainly not all of it, is our sentencing regime, an issue that I have raised on many occasions.

On a wider issue, it is worth reflecting on the most recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report on our criminal justice system. The report said that inspectors found that:

Further, they found that there was no:

That is in line with the 'Review of the Northern Ireland Policing Board', which described the tripartite relationship as showing:

According to the Criminal Justice Inspection report, that has led to criminal justice outcomes remaining "relatively static" despite numerous strategies and policies, with "impactful change" being "slow". The Ulster Unionist Party's motion lays out areas that will, we believe, bring about meaningful change and, importantly, increase confidence in a beleaguered criminal justice system.

First, we call for compulsory and continuous personal and professional development for our judges. Their training is the responsibility of the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ) through the Judicial Studies Board for Northern Ireland. That has been the case since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. We believe that delivering that training must be more than an invitation to attend. There must be directed attendance with registered outcomes in order to ensure that our judges are equipped with the knowledge that they need to exercise their judicial functions. In doing so, the training should aim to ensure that judges understand that the language that they use during a trial or in passing sentence must be designed to give confidence to the public. We simply cannot have a repeat of the situation where a serious predatory sex offender was told by the judge to find a wife and start a family or that he should not be excluded from normal life and should be allowed to use the same internet dating site that he used to target the woman whom he sexually assaulted. Such language creates moral and societal outrage and undermines confidence.

That brings me to the issue of lenient sentencing in Northern Ireland, particularly sentence discounts or credits or the fact that judges are able to deviate from mandatory minimum sentencing. Sentencing in Northern Ireland is complex. It has been stated that:

Yet, in Northern Ireland, we have put the perpetrator in the driving seat. If the perpetrator admits guilt at the earliest opportunity, they receive up to a third off their sentence. The reason for that is well known. It saves time, money and resources, and it saves the victim from having to go through the pain of a trial. OK, I can get behind that. I think that getting a third off a sentence is excessive, but it is similar to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, here is where I really am concerned.

If the perpetrator pleads not guilty and then decides to wait to see how the evidence stacks up, puts his victim through perhaps two or three years of worry while waiting for the trial and then decides at the last moment, even on the day that the trial starts, to plead guilty, he could receive up to 25% — a quarter — off his sentence. Why would a perpetrator therefore not chance his arm? That is an obscene amount of sentence reduction.

Let me be clear: it is our party's belief that individuals should get one chance to plead guilty, and that is at their arraignment hearing or earlier. If they do, they will receive a sentence reduction. If they do not, the opportunity should be taken away from them. If perpetrators then decide to plead guilty, it should be up to the judge to decide whether they are entitled to have any time taken off their sentence, but that needs to be backloaded. What do I mean by "backloaded"?

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I thank the Member for giving way. Before he continues, will he clarify that? At the moment, that is what happens. A person is offered the opportunity at arraignment to plead, and if they plead, they will get a certain reduction in sentence for entering an early guilty plea. If they plead later in the process, it is the judge who determines the percentage of sentence reduction, if any, to which they are entitled. How does his proposal therefore differ from what happens at the moment?

Mr Speaker: Before you respond, Mr Beattie, there were only nine minutes from when you started until 2.45 pm, when I will have to interrupt you. If you could therefore finish within nine minutes, that would be good.

Mr Beattie: I do not think that I will be able to. I am really sorry, Mr Speaker.

Minister, you probably just caught me at the sentence at which I was about to say what I believe should be meant by backloading that element when, as you just said, somebody enters a late guilty plea. It means that they get should time off their licence not off their custodial sentence. That is what I mean by "backloading". I am aware that there is a consultation —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Go ahead.

Mrs Long: Not all sentences have a licensing element, so I am really at a loss to understand. If somebody is on a life licence, that is a permanent situation for the rest of their life, but many people will not have an extended licence. They will simply have their custody period. I therefore do not understand the point about licence. Can you clarify?

Mr Beattie: Yes, I can. If I had time, I would be able to go through it all with you, but I do not, so I will have to be pretty sharp and frugal with my words. Not all, but the vast majority of sentences are 50% custodial and 50% on licence. That is roughly what people see happen. It is not exact, and I do not have the time to go through it all exactly. What I am saying is that, if you are going to give somebody a sentence reduction, take it off the time that they have on licence, not off the time that they spend behind bars.

Let us remember why we have custodial sentences. I am conscious of Sinn Féin's amendment, which deals with rehabilitation, and I have no issue with it whatsoever. I will support the amendment, and I look forward to hearing what its Members have to say on public protection. Punishment and deterrence, however, are also included among the reasons for a custodial sentence, and we seem to have forgotten about those two core principles, even though 80% of the people in jail currently are repeat offenders. Our sentencing is weak and ineffective, particularly for crimes of a sexual nature against women and girls. There is a case of an individual with hundreds of sexually explicit pictures of children getting a suspended sentence. In 2023, the perpetrator of the rape of a 14-year-old girl received just 18 months in jail. In 2024, a two-year jail term was given to a 51-year-old man who raped a woman whom he had met on a dating site. In 2025, for the sexual abuse of two girls aged six and eight, the perpetrator got six years. In the case of a vulnerable teenage girl who was raped by a 47-year-old man, the sentence was four years behind bars. That is not good enough. People do not think that it is good enough, and they do not view the licence element of the sentence as being just. I guess that that is the point that I am trying to make.

What can help? The Ulster Unionist Party believes that the establishment of a sentencing council could give judges stronger direction on sentencing, not just guidance. A sentencing council would have the ability to take away a lot of the discretion in judges' determinations and, in doing so, achieve exactly what people want, which is consistency, transparency, fairness, the sentence to match the crime and a system that is understood. Go to the Judiciary NI website, and, under the sentencing guidelines for sexual offences, you will find 58 entries that outline case law.

It is from that that judges form their decisions, along with maximum and minimum —.

Mr Speaker: Mr Beattie, I am sorry that I have to interrupt you. I am sorry, because I wanted to hear that. You will have a minute after Question Time to finish.

Mr Speaker: Diana Armstrong is not in her place.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I am pleased to advise that the first phase of the West Belfast greenway is programmed to commence construction in the coming months. Officials are also preparing a planning application for the next phase of the West Belfast greenway and hope to submit it in the autumn. When that section of the route is complete, it will provide an attractive, high-quality active travel route that is predominantly traffic-free between Andersonstown and the city centre.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Will you provide an update on the wider delivery of the Belfast cycling network delivery plan?

Ms Kimmins: Yes. Since the Belfast cycling network delivery plan was first published in 2022, approximately 13 kilometres of new cycle path have been built, in partnership with Belfast City Council, on the Lagan gateway and the Forth Meadow greenway schemes. Improvements have also been made to existing facilities, with the installation of environmentally friendly lighting along the 7 kilometre urban section of the Comber greenway and on Stranmillis Embankment, with new red surfacing laid along the existing segregated cycle track between Ormeau Road and Governors Bridge.

Design work is substantially complete on a further four schemes. Those are at various stages of the statutory process that is required to legislate for cycle routes before construction can commence. Design is either ongoing or due to commence shortly on a further eight schemes, and officials are working to bring a number of those forward for public engagement later this year. Officials are also considering the prioritisation of future schemes in the Belfast cycling network in line with the emerging eastern transport plan and other significant changes that have occurred in Belfast in recent years.

Ms Kimmins: My Department does not monitor spend on cycling infrastructure separately from other active travel improvements. The total spend recorded on dedicated active travel projects in the past three financial years is £12 million in 2022-23, £10 million in 2023-24 and, provisionally, £17 million in 2024-25. In addition to spend on new active travel projects, my Department routinely undertakes many activities that are primarily for the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists. Spend on those is not included in those figures. Overall spend in my Department on active travel is in the region of £45 million to £50 million, which equates to around 5% to 6% of the overall transport budget.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that improving and enhancing the opportunity for people to cycle is essential for improving public health and reducing congestion? How will she ensure that the active travel budget prioritises schemes over fixing footways and repairing street lights?

Ms Kimmins: The Member refers to fixing footways and street lights as if those things take up a lot of the budget. Such work is carried out on active travel schemes that are already in place and require maintenance to ensure that the routes are safe for everyone to use, be that by making sure that they are properly lit or that the surfaces are safe for pedestrians and cyclists. However, there is a difference between the maintenance of existing schemes and the building of new schemes. Part of that is about ensuring that they are safe for people to use, which relates to the quality of the surfaces as well as ensuring that they are properly lit. If we want to do this really well, we have to ensure that the routes that we are providing, whether they are new or existing, are accessible for everyone, can be used at all times during the day, are properly connecting communities and fulfil what we set out to do.

Mr Boylan: Minister, how do you determine whether active travel funding is being fairly distributed?

Ms Kimmins: I understand that walking, wheeling or cycling will always be most attractive as modes of transport over shorter distances, as they are probably more achievable for most people in those circumstances. Therefore, it is important to target investment in areas where it has the potential to be at its most beneficial. However, striking the right balance between urban and rural investment is also very important. To ensure fairness and consistency, we will use the same guiding principles that apply in larger towns and cities to prioritise pedestrian and cycling improvements in smaller settlements. We will, therefore, place particular emphasis on links to schools, public transport and small town or village centres.

It is fair to say that this is not an exact science, so my Department continues to engage with all councils and other stakeholders to strike the right balance to ensure that we are delivering for everybody across the North and do not focus just on bigger areas.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, the aim is to have the active travel budget sitting at around 10%; I think that it is currently at 6% or 7% or thereabouts. Will that be to the detriment of existing roads and footpaths, because we are swinging too much one way and cannot drive or walk on what we have at present?

Ms Kimmins: I think that the Member raised that before. I do not think that it is to the detriment of existing roads and footpaths. Those are schemes that we have to do, and we want to encourage people to get out of their cars and use their bikes or walk or whatever it may be. One should not replace the other. We are working to ensure that we provide options for everybody and are working towards our climate change targets on active travel. You will know that it is set out in those targets that I have to allocate 10% of my budget to active travel, so it is a requirement for me. It is very important, however, that if we are to encourage people to have healthier lifestyles and to get out and about and out of their cars, we have to do it right. That is how we are doing it, and we have to work towards that 10% budget allocation.

It is important to say that maintaining our footpaths is part of the overall piece on roads and footpaths. You will also be aware of the fact that we are looking at the road maintenance strategy and at how we can do it better. We all recognise the shortfalls in the budget, but take it from me that I am committed to making sure that I get as much money as I can to upgrade and fix our roads to the best of my and the Department's ability. I am very focused on that.

Ms Kimmins: Road safety is a high priority for my Department, and I am committed to working proactively to make our roads safer and to address the needs of all road users.

Since 2020-21, the Department has delivered two tranches of part-time 20 mph speed limits at 216 schools, which is an investment of £4 million. The Department previously piloted that approach at 17 schools, bringing the total number of schools with part-time 20 mph speed limits to 233. A review of the initiative introducing part-time 20 mph speed limits at schools was undertaken and is available on my Department's website. The review recommended the provision of a third tranche of part-time speed limits at schools, with a more targeted intervention approach.

A new policy document has been issued to enable an interim and modest programme to be taken forward in this financial year. Given current funding pressures, tranche 3 is to be a bit more modest in size. A programme for schools that are to be treated in the next financial year has now been prepared. That draft programme is based on the existing scored listing, so it covers those schools that have already been scored as part of the previous tranches, but, at my request and given the significance of that higher speed limit and how it might impact on road safety, preference will be given to rural schools that are located on roads where the national speed limit applies. I am considering the draft programme and hope to be in a position to make a formal announcement this week.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her detailed response. I have been lobbying her and the Department on the issue continually over the past number of months. Minister, when will we be likely to see tranche 3 being announced?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, I have been considering that and looking at what we can do and at whether we can maximise the budget that I have to ensure that we get as many schools as possible in that tranche. I have been back and forth with officials in recent weeks to ensure that we can get the maximum number of schools in that tranche. As I said, I am hoping to make an announcement this week.

Mr Buckley: I want to believe the Minister that road speed and road infrastructure are priorities for the Department. The Minister will know that, within the past hour, a judge has ruled that the decision by the Department to proceed with the A5 cannot stand. Will she now accept that, whether they relate to our infrastructure, economy or agriculture, the current Northern Ireland climate change targets are a dangerous weight around our neck?

Ms Kimmins: I do not think that that is related to the question on the 20 mph speed limit.

Mr Speaker: It is up to you how you answer that.

Ms Kimmins: I do not know how to answer it in relation to the 20 mph speed limit, to be honest with you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Buckley: You do not want to answer it.

Ms Kimmins: Are we asking about the Climate Change Act or are we asking about —?

Mr Buckley: Speed. We just had a decision about —.

Mr Speaker: Order. Next for a supplementary question is Stewart Dickson.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. To go back to the topic, while we certainly welcome a 20 mph speed limit outside schools — I have heard this question asked regularly in the Chamber, and I will ask it again today — what action are you taking to encourage children to cycle and walk and use walking buses to get to school?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. Just last week, I met Sustrans, which does significant work in schools. I am aware that the Department helps to fund the cycling proficiency scheme. There is lots more that we can do and that I am keen to do. The Member will know that I recently announced that I will take forward legislation on safety on school buses. That, in itself, is something that we can do. I have requested a meeting with the Education Minister to see how we can work together on that. There is an important education piece specific to that on helping our children to be more aware while using buses, particularly when they are getting on and off them.

The Member talked about walking buses, and I am keen to explore their use further. I know that they are very effective and encourage schoolchildren and their parents, carers or whoever takes them to school to do so in a more active way. We are doing a lot of work on the issue. As I said in response to a earlier question, the overall active travel delivery plan outlines the focus on ensuring that we have safer routes that link schools with residential areas. I am working to provide permanent 20 mph zones in those areas that are more residential and safe links to schools, shopping areas and such places so that we can continue to build on the work that is being done.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I declare an interest: my wee fella started at his new school, St Malachy's in Camlough, this morning. His first day was very nerve-racking and exciting at the same time. I was approached by a concerned member of staff, who asked me how to get a 20 mph speed limit control zone outside St Malachy's on the Chapel Road in Camlough and any other traffic control measures to keep the children safe, because she was really concerned about the fact that there have been too many near misses in recent years.

Ms Kimmins: First, I send my best wishes to Setanta. I hope that he has a great first day and many happy years in St Malachy's, which is another great school in our constituency. As a parent of a P2 pupil who is going into P3, I know that this time just flies. I am sure that you and your wife are very excited for the time ahead.

On the specific school, I think that all schools in all our areas would, ideally, like to have a 20 mph zone outside them. I, too, have been approached by my child's school about significant road safety concerns. Unfortunately, everybody is in a hurry, and road users often do not think of the implications when using the roads.

As I said, this is a modest tranche. We are finalising where the schools that are already on the existing list have scored. There is no doubt that some schools may not get through in this tranche. I suggest to the Member that we take that forward. If the school is not included in this tranche, we can make sure that it, along with others, is assessed for a future 20 mph zone and traffic-calming measures, as we work out a more long-term plan. I encourage the Member to contact the section office or my private office to get an assessment of that area of Camlough so that we can see what is required. I have not come across that to date, so I am happy to ask officials to look into it.

Ms Kimmins: NI Water treats approximately 73 million cubic metres of waste water per year at the five main waste water treatment works that discharge into Belfast lough. NI Water has advised that its models indicate that, on average, only 70,000 cubic metres of untreated sewage from waste water treatment works are discharged into Belfast lough annually. Whilst approximately 3·5 million cubic metres of waste water from the waste water treatment works are discharged directly into Belfast lough without being treated, it is crucial to note that only 1% to 2% of that is untreated. That is not to take away from the issue; it is just to put into context what is being discharged.

NI Water estimates that approximately 80% to 95% of that spill volume is rainwater; 5% to 20% is everyday waste water from homes and businesses; and 1% to 2% is, as I have said, is untreated sewage. As the Member and the Assembly know, I continue to work with Executive colleagues to provide NI Water with the adequate funding needed to allow it to deal with the problems in the waste water system not just in Belfast but across the North. I know that Belfast lough in particular is a significant issue, and we continue to look at solutions to it.

As well as that, I continue to follow the three-pronged approach that I have referred to on many occasions in the Chamber, first, to secure more investment for waste water infrastructure but also to look at what else we can do. Members will be aware that my Bill on sustainable drainage was introduced this morning, and I look forward to hearing the discussion on that in the time ahead.

Mr Chambers: Any amount of raw sewage going into Belfast lough is totally unacceptable, but everyone agrees that the waste water treatment works that discharge into Belfast lough require considerable investment to bring them up to the compliance standards that are coming down the line. Has the Minister a strategy to find the investment needed to bring those treatment works up to standard?

Ms Kimmins: As I said on the overall issue of waste water infrastructure, the Member is familiar with the three-pronged approach that I referred to in my previous response. That is the way forward at present. However, in the interim, I have been working closely with NI Water to look at other ways in which we can do as much as possible in the time that we have. At present, NI Water provides additional maintenance to the treatment works around Belfast lough to ensure that those assets can continue to operate in the short term and until such times as we have the budget available to undertake the more substantial upgrade that is required. That is something we are looking at across the North. In addition to that, NI Water continues its programme of installing event duration monitors to identify the worst-performing discharge points and to help ensure that money is targeted where it is most needed.

In a challenging financial context, we are looking at what else we can do to mitigate the situation as much as possible. It is not ideal: I totally take the point that it is unacceptable. We should not see any untreated sewage go into our waterways — that is not where any of us want to be — but, until such times as we have the budget to do the work that is needed, we have to do what we can to alleviate difficulties as best we can, if we cannot fully eliminate them.

Mr Dunne: As the living with water programme in Belfast is paused, how long will the pause be? Will you outline your engagement with NI Water and what more you will do to tackle the waste water capacity crisis that we have across Northern Ireland?

Ms Kimmins: I will answer the second part of the question first. I have made my approach clear on numerous occasions, particularly on securing additional investment. At every stage, whether monitoring rounds or whatever it may be, we try to garner more funds to do as much work as we can. It is fair to say that the whole Executive Budget would not cover the work. Even if NI Water had the budget today, it says that it would take a long time to deliver what is needed. We are working through that. My approach to everything in the budget is to break it down and see what we can do well with the budget that we have.

A review of the Belfast living with water plan was commissioned due to a rise in the estimated cost of delivering it from £1·4 billion to £2·1 billion, which, I am sure, the Member will agree, is a significant rise since the plan was announced. The review concluded that the Belfast plan is still needed. However, the original 12-year delivery time frame is no longer viable. Projects in the plan, which include proposals to improve the water quality of Belfast lough, will now be taken forward by my Department and NI Water as normal business at a scale and pace achievable within available budgets rather than through a structured programme. As I have said, I take the approach of seeing what can be done with the budget that we have until such times as more funding is available.

It was always accepted that additional funding would be required to deliver the living with water plan and, in the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement, living with water was identified as a beneficiary of increased funding. However, that funding was not received.

I remain fully committed to the Belfast plan's objectives to help protect against flooding, enhance the environment and grow the economy. I will continue, as I have been doing to date and as my predecessor did, to make the case for additional funding and expedite its delivery. In the last financial year, I provided NI Water with half a billion pounds in funding.

Mr Speaker: Time is up, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: I hope that reassures Members about how committed we are to this.

Mr McMurray: Does the Minister accept that there is an immediate need for additional action, given that the current approach has made no difference to sewage spills and given the environmental peril that Belfast lough is in?

Ms Kimmins: I agree. That is the point that I am making. None of us underestimates the fact that it is a really live and significant problem. If I had all the money to do the work, we would not be having this conversation, but the reality is that we do not. Difficult decisions have to be made every day on the budget. That does not mean that we stand still; it means that we have to continue to lobby for the additional funds, wherever they may come from, whether that is through the Executive or from the British Treasury. Ministers around the Executive table all recognise how important this is. Every one of us knows that, in order to move forward on many of the things that the Programme for Government sets out and that many of us as MLAs have prioritised, we need to ensure that our waste water infrastructure is fit for purpose. I will continue to work with Executive colleagues in the first instance, but I am also looking at other steps that I can take in the interim to ensure that we continue to move forward until we get to the point where we are dealing with the problem in the most effective and efficient way.

Mr Speaker: Dr Aiken is not in his place.

Ms Kimmins: I have secured £15 million over the next four years from the public-sector transformation fund to develop and deliver a pilot project that will use nature-based solutions to help transform our urban drainage systems. The aim is to provide a range of nature-based drainage and flood management solutions to demonstrate their effectiveness in managing the flow of water through urban areas, helping to reduce flood risk and pollution. Nature-based drainage solutions are cleaner and greener and can help slow the flow of water entering our sewers, which, in turn, will help to reduce the risk of out-of-sewer flooding. The pilot project's overall target is to provide approximately 10,000 cubic metres of temporary rainwater storage by retrofitting sustainable drainage systems, commonly known as "SuDS", to reduce the pressure on our constrained drainage and waste water infrastructure. Officials are engaging with a range of stakeholders to discuss potential locations for nature-based solutions, focusing on bringing viable projects from concept to delivery within the framework of the transformation fund. The project will initially focus on the Fortwilliam and Whitehouse areas in Belfast. However, interventions outside that area may also be considered where the benefits of nature-based drainage solutions can be demonstrated.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Does the Minister agree that changing how we live with water can produce many benefits in the future?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, absolutely. The more we utilise nature-based solutions, the more sustainable it is. As I mentioned, I have introduced the Bill. It is an exciting time, because it shows innovation. So much work has gone into the Bill, and, from speaking to developers and representatives of the construction industry, I know that developers are already using more nature-based solutions in individual housing projects or developments. There are lots of things we can do to ensure that we not only treat the water that needs to be treated but do so in a more cost-effective, efficient and sustainable way.

Ms Kimmins: The numbers and types of access for developments are assessed on a site-specific basis as part of the planning process, taking into account site constraints and transportation assessment modelling. The Creating Places supplementary planning guidance is used in the design of all proposals for residential development throughout the North from small-scale infill housing schemes to major projects on large sites incorporating a mix of uses. Neither Creating Places nor local or regional planning policy statements require more than one access to a development. I am informed that the current planning permission for the Mount Carmel development requires the construction of a second access from the site onto the Evish Road.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, there are six separate housing developments in that complex, encompassing well over 600 to 800 houses. That is a lot of residents. They were locked in their homes for the third time in the past couple of years and could not get out due to a bomb scare on the main shared access route. What will you do to ensure that the planning permission will be enforced so that people are safe and can get to and from their homes when such events happen?

Ms Kimmins: I offer my best wishes to those residents. Nobody likes to be in that situation, whether it be a security incident or whatever it may be. I cannot imagine how stressful and anxious a time that must be, especially if it has happened on a number of occasions to those residents.

As I said, that second access must be delivered by the developer prior to the commencement of any development in excess of the 66 dwellings in that portion of the site. The developer has reached the trigger, but work has temporarily stopped on the site. There are details of that situation that I cannot speak about in the House, as the Member may be aware. I will say, however, that officials are working to ensure that we get to that point.

Ms Kimmins: As I said earlier, road safety is a major priority for me as Minister. I am committed to considering any initiatives that will improve road safety for everyone. I recently announced an extensive package of road safety measures aimed at safeguarding schoolchildren travelling to and from school, as I mentioned earlier, particularly around using school buses and people overtaking buses. I am also taking forward a number of strategic interventions, including a consultation seeking views on a change to the law surrounding the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving, a review of drink-driving legislation and options to address drug-driving, and I am introducing graduated driver licensing.

I would also like to see what can be done to improve attitudes to speeding not only for road safety purposes but to make places cleaner and greener. I have therefore asked my officials to prepare a paper on a number of speed-related matters, including the national speed limit on rural roads, HGV speed limits and 20 mph speed limits in general — I mentioned those in my responses to previous questions — after which I plan to undertake a public consultation exercise on this important issue. Alongside that, I have asked officials to develop a new and forward-looking road safety strategy action plan in partnership with our road safety stakeholders, all of whom work together to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road collisions. I am also keen to explore how we can work better together with our road safety partners and other Departments. As I mentioned earlier, I have written to the Department of Education — to the Minister in the first instance — seeking a meeting to discuss it further to see how we can collaborate.

I believe that a multi-agency and cross-departmental approach to tackling the issue is vital. I am keen to work with others to discuss opportunities and agree a structured approach to improving the safety of children, particularly when going to and from school. Whilst all of those measures, I believe, have the potential to deliver significant road safety benefits, we can all take immediate action to improve road safety to ensure that the 2030 target is met. We can all make a collective effort to do so —

Mr Speaker: Time is up, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: — and that will make the difference going forward.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for her response. I totally agree with her that we can all take action to increase safety when we are on the road. She mentioned graduated driver licensing as a safety option: is she able to provide more information on that?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, I am deeply concerned about the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Sadly, younger drivers, particularly young male drivers, are significantly over-represented in road traffic collision statistics. The aim of graduated driver licensing is to reduce the over-representation of new, mainly young, drivers in fatal and serious road traffic collisions by providing new drivers with driving experiences and skills gradually and in a lower-risk environment. I want graduated driver licensing to be implemented as soon as possible, and my officials are working to accomplish that. It is a major, resource-intensive undertaking, and significant operational planning and preparation is required, including the amendment of current driver training tests and post-test arrangements. However, I believe that it will have long-term impacts and will help to improve road safety for all road users, not just for motorists. I look forward to providing further detail as soon as we are at that point. It is a forward step in addressing road safety.

Mr Clarke: Minister, those are nice, warm words about improving road safety. However, today's court judgement has shown that your party's support and that of others for the climate change policy has had a major impact on that. How do you judge that the impact seen today will affect your work going forward to improve road safety through road upgrades in other areas of rural Northern Ireland?

Ms Kimmins: First, I will say that this has been a very disappointing day. My first thoughts are with all of the families who have lost a loved one and those who have been injured as a result of road traffic collisions along the A5.

It is not a day for point-scoring or anything like that; it is a day to look at what needs to be done to move the scheme forward.

The Member may be aware that it is a 99-page ruling, so I will now have to take the time to consider its detail and what its implications will be. Let me say this, however: I am committed to getting the A5 delivered, to protecting lives and to ensuring that no more lives are lost on that road.

Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion the time for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions.

Ms Kimmins: As I said in my previous response, today is a hugely disappointing day; in fact, it is heartbreaking, particularly for all who have campaigned very strongly and for all the families who have put so much time and effort into doing so, despite dealing with their own grief and loss. They believe that the A5 upgrade is the way to ensure that no other family goes through what they have gone through. That is something on which we all should reflect, because the judge, in giving his judgement today, reflected on how the decision would cause anguish and heartbreak for all those families.

As I said, it is a detailed judgement. It will take some time for me, my officials and my legal team to go through the detail of it and see what the implications are and how we chart a way forward. The road needs to be built. We cannot allow any more lives to be lost, and I am determined to find a solution and a way forward, because lives are too important. I do not want any other family to have to go through what those families have experienced.

Mr Durkan: Will the Minister, along with her Executive colleagues, prepare emergency amending legislation to clarify the relevant section or sections of the Climate Change Act 2022, which, in its entirety, was voted through by all in the House, that preserves its core purpose while clarifying that it cannot be used to block action that is necessary to save lives, or does she have a plan B?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, I want to see a solution. We need to act in immediacy, but it is important that we do so very thoroughly. Today's ruling is a detailed decision, the implications of which we do not know at this stage, because we received the judgement less than three hours ago. It would be remiss of me to start saying that I will do this or do that without considering the judgement in great detail. I will engage thoroughly with my legal team and my officials on that, because, as I said, this is the third time that there has been a legal challenge about that road. Families are tired and want to see it built, and that is my priority. After we work our way through the judgement, we will be in a better position to comment.

Ms Kimmins: Just give me a second. I have lost my train of thought.

As the Member will know, I made an announcement earlier in the year. At this stage, we are engaging with stakeholders and starting the process. I recently met some stakeholders from the Ormeau Road end, as well as Retail NI. We are looking at the next stage and at how it will look in order to ensure that there is proper engagement with all stakeholders and that we learn from what happened in the past. I can give the Member a more detailed response in writing about what else is happening, as I do not have all the details in front of me, Peter. That is the most recent update that I have.

Mr McReynolds: Given how it will improve air quality, reduce congestion and tackle climate change, will the Minister provide assurances that the project will be delivered as soon as possible and without undue delay?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. I would not have made the announcement had I felt that we could not do that. As I said when I made the original statement a number of months ago, what was important for me was that, while we were unable to commit to the full project at that stage due to budgetary constraints, I wanted to ensure that we did as much as we could with the available budget, which has been my approach to other issues that are relevant to my Department. I am keen to see that being delivered, and I am committed to ensuring that it is delivered at the earliest possible stage. If any unforeseen issues arise, we will ensure that we keep elected reps and the community updated, because, as with all major schemes, there is the potential for issues to arise at any stage. Hopefully, that will not be the case. We will continue to work through that in the time ahead.

Ms Kimmins: I do not know the specific parts of North Down that you are talking about. Last week, I met councillors from Ards and North Down Borough Council to discuss road conditions, and they raised a number of issues. We had a positive discussion about how we can work together to ensure that we address those issues, as is the case across the North. Standing water may occur for a number of reasons in specific areas. Without having assessments or engineering reports, I might not be able to provide a response. If the Member sends in the specifics, I am happy to get responses from the local section office.

Mr Chambers: Is the Minister satisfied that the local section office's cleaning routine for roadside gullies is adequate?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said before and in response to questions for written answer, due to our budget, we have a more limited service for all the Department's operational duties. That is continually under review, and I continually ask for additional funding to support the Department's work.

It is fair to say that I am not satisfied. I do not think that anybody is satisfied. We always want to do more and achieve the highest standard. However, unfortunately, given the financial constraints, that is not always possible. I am sure that his colleague in the Health Ministry would appreciate that and the challenge that that presents. As I have said, where there are particular issues that are leading to road safety concerns, I am happy for those to be sent in to the private office so that we can look at them.

Ms Kimmins: I wonder whether the Member has moved constituencies and is now representing Newry and Armagh.

I have received numerous questions about the billboard. It is a planning matter, so I ask the Member to speak to the local council about it.

Mr Gaston: That is news to me and a lot of ones in the Chamber. Sinn Féin has a history of erecting posters on the billboard at that roundabout; maybe that is why the Minister is reluctant to provide a time frame for its removal. My understanding is that the billboard is on Department-owned land: on that basis, how can anybody but the Department apply for planning permission? How do you square that with your Pledge of Office? How do you plan to take action? If it is your Department's land, obviously, your Department would have to lodge the planning application. Sinn Féin has used the billboard in the past. Surely, you are not applying for permission for a Sinn Féin billboard.

Ms Kimmins: OK. I am not sure where to start with that, but I will say that the land is part-owned by the Department; the Department does not own all of it. When billboards have been erected in the past, the Department has made contact with those who erected them. I am happy to take further questions on that. If you want to write in, we can ask about it specifically. I do not believe that the current billboard is a Sinn Féin one.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. I agree that the report from the Fiscal Council is welcome. It confirms what my predecessor and I have said consistently, which is that alternative funding models for NI Water would lead only to the introduction of water charges for householders. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that I will not introduce water charges. I will not add to the financial burden that many people would face if that were the case. Others may be de facto campaigning for water charges to be imposed on families at a time when the cost of living is soaring, particularly as the events that we have seen in recent days could impact on energy costs. Others may simply gloss over or fail to mention the reality of what that will mean for household budgets, for parents who are already struggling with childcare costs or for young people who are starting on their career path. It is also important to say that money that is spent on additional bills will not be spent in our local economy, so there could be wide-reaching implications as a result. I am not prepared to do it, and the Fiscal Council report strongly points out that that would be the implication.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagraí go dtí seo.

Further to what she said, does the Minister agree that, at a time when parents are skipping meals so that their children can eat, as highlighted by the Consumer Council, it would be unconscionable to place further costs on top of their bills?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, that is a pertinent point. I saw the report from the Consumer Council. It reported that food costs account for almost a quarter of households' basic spending, with almost half of young adults surveyed fearing that their food would run out before they had the money to buy more. Again, I think — [Interruption.]

Sorry, Mr Speaker, it is so hard to concentrate when people are having full conversations here.

Mr Speaker: Fair enough on that one. It is a different thing if you are participating in the debate. Keep conversations down, please.

Ms Kimmins: Thank you. The average household rate in the North for 2024-25 was £1,180 per annum, so, if we applied the notional figure of £595 on top of that, the starting point would be an average annual bill of almost £1,800 for households. Again, it would be unfair to add that extra financial burden to households. It is important that we continue to look at the other options that I have outlined on numerous occasions in the House and ensure that, in whatever way we achieve what we need to do, it will not be to the detriment of the ordinary people in all our communities.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for the question. In the main, the Fiscal Council report considers how that funding gap can be closed. It is important to put it into perspective. We are talking about a difference of £55 million between the indicative amount that my Department is allocating for capital funding to NI Water, which is £350 million, and the capital funding that NI Water says that it needs to deliver this year, which is £405 million. I continue to look at other practical and innovative ways to address that funding gap. That will include assessing responses to the consultation on developer contributions. I will also continue to work with Executive colleagues for increased funding throughout the year. There are always opportunities, and I continue to lobby strongly, in particular for NI Water.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin.

Minister, in my constituency, I deal on an ongoing basis with the shortcomings of developers in relation to their responsibilities in waste water infrastructure. Will you provide an update for us on the developers' contributions consultation, please?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, the consultation is ongoing. It opened on 21 March 2025 and will close at noon this Friday. I encourage everyone who wishes to make an input to do so before then. Everyone's feedback is valuable to the discussion. We have had numerous debates in the Chamber regarding waste water infrastructure and the solutions to fix it. I am keen to hear from everyone.

Once that consultation period ends, my officials will immediately begin analysing the responses that we have received from consultees. That will help to inform my decisions on the next steps. The consultation has been seeking views on whether and how my Department could introduce developer contributions to help fund the necessary improvements for our waste water infrastructure.

It proposes two main options: option 1, voluntary developer contributions; and option 2, a compulsory developer contribution levy, which would involve the requirement of a financial contribution from developers that would be used on a prioritised-needs basis across the North. Potentially, both options could be taken forward, or one or the other could be taken forward. That will depend on the outcome of the consultation. I will update the House as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Yes, in a moment.

Minister, you answered 15 supplementary questions. The good news is that you are not bottom of the list; the bad news is that you are very close to it.

Mr O'Toole, point of order.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, will you advise on how we might proceed if a Minister makes what appear to be almost directly contradictory statements, one after the other? The Infrastructure Minister just said in answer to Gerry Kelly that there was no alternative funding model for NI Water other than water charging. In answer to the next question, from Mr Kearney, she said that her Department was looking for innovative ways to fund Northern Ireland Water. Those statements appear to me to be, on the face of it, directly contradictory. Will the Speaker advise on how we might address that?

Mr Speaker: I do not think that that will have been the first occasion on which a Minister has been contradictory. I do not think that it is my role to get involved in those issues, other than to enable Members, like Mr O'Toole, to pose the difficult questions to Ministers. As he knows, I am happy to do that.

Dr Aiken: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not being in my place for question 8, and I apologise to the Minister, before she heads out.

Ms D Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to you and the Minister for not being in my seat for question 1.

Mr Speaker: I think that you missed it by seconds, but it does not matter: once the time has passed, it has passed.

I ask Members to take their ease while we change the Chair.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, let us resume the debate. I call Doug Beattie to have his final one minute to move the motion.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will finish off by talking about the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. If you go on to the website, you see that it is extremely clear on how sentences are arrived at. The judge gives a judgement in terms that can be understood by everybody and breaks it down. If you are in any doubt whatsoever, listen to the sentencing of Axel Rudakubana for the murder of those three wee girls. While we may not have liked the fact that he did not get a whole-life sentence, the judge laid it out so that we understood why he did not get a whole-life sentence. I know that the Lady Chief Justice does not agree with our position on a sentencing council. She says that we are well served with what we have, but I do not think that we are, and large swathes of society do not think that we are. I welcome that the Minister is bringing forward a sentencing Bill, and I hope to be able to feed into that, but if a sentencing council is not part of that sentencing Bill, the Ulster Unionist Party will propose an amendment to make sure that it is.

Miss Hargey: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Deirdre, please open the debate on the amendment.

Miss Hargey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I place on record my thanks to the Members for tabling the motion. These are important issues. They are worthy of discussion and debate, and I am sure that we will have plenty of that when the Minister introduces the Bill, next year.

The Lady Chief Justice recently said:

Sentencing, including sentencing reform, is at a critical point in public safety, justice and human rights. We must ensure that we have a system that is open and accessible, is understood by the broader public and commands their confidence. We know that there have been soundings recently about opening up courts — indeed, the Minister is consulting on that — to make them more accessible and more easily understood, and looking at introducing some broadcasting. That is welcome, but appropriate safeguards for victims and witnesses must be included and due process must be allowed to run its course.

Some recent cases have had an impact on public confidence. We must learn from them. One case involved more than 40 incidents of sexual exploitation and trafficking. I contacted the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) about the sentence that was handed down. That case has been referred to the Court of Appeal. The proposer of the motion referred to the recent sentence that was handed down to a known loyalist. The PPS has said that it is reviewing that sentence.

Although those examples show that there is a mechanism to review, they also pose the question of whether the original sentences were appropriate in the first place. There are also questions about the impact on public confidence and victims, where they are involved. Many members of the public and Members of the House have questioned why the minimum sentence was not given to Irvine in the recent case, as it was to his co-accused. There are also questions about why the charges for possessing firearms were not brought under terrorist offences, given that he was arrested under terrorism legislation by the PSNI's anti-terrorism unit. That case and others clearly show the urgent need to look at how character references are being used and assessed. We need to look at best practice around the issue in other jurisdictions, such as the South of Ireland, where, if you provide a character reference, you must appear in person under oath.

We know that our justice system is under huge pressure, with delays in case progression and disposals, increases in our prison population, unacceptable levels of reoffending, victims not always feeling supported or informed by the system and a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups. A recent Criminal Justice Inspection (CJINI) report highlighted the fact that outcomes remain static. Despite a number of strategies and policies, impactful change has been slow.

Recent figures published by NISRA on reoffending rates show that almost 80% of cases are classed as repeat offending. That is on top of the already high number of people in our prison system, with an increased population, doubling up in cells, and more complex cases now presenting, particularly around substance use and poor mental health. The Justice Committee has been looking at those areas over the past year. We held a joint Committee session a few months ago with the Health Committee. We are calling for more joined-up working and planning from both Departments to tackle those issues. They need to use their resources better and more collaboratively in order to achieve better outcomes in those areas. It is for those reasons that we tabled our amendment.

Although we must ensure that there is an appropriate sentencing framework in place that is clear and codified and which protects the public, we support the establishment of a sentencing council, such as that developed in the South of Ireland, where Sinn Féin supported the introduction of sentencing guidelines. We must also ensure that we focus on comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement programmes.

We cannot just continue to do what we are doing, because what we are doing is not working. That is played out in the statistics that NISRA recently published. We want to ensure that we increase public safety. Obviously, we must deter people from committing crime and intervene at an earlier stage to look at the causes of why people commit crime or why they reoffend. I cannot underscore enough that over 70% of crime involves reoffending. It is not good enough to say that we need to put those people back inside; we need to understand the drivers and causes of reoffending so that we can prevent those figures from materialising in the first place. We know that relying on sentences is not effective in reducing reoffending. We must look at the stats on reoffending and say that something needs to change. We need to find a balance between deterrence and rehabilitation, with public safety always being a key driver and while upholding our duties in a manner that is compliant with human rights.

It is essential that we reform our sentencing framework. Obviously we need to look at the mitigators and the aggravating factors, particularly when it comes to serious offences involving gender-based violence, racism and sectarianism. We must ensure that the public understands and is given confidence. That is essential to ensuring that the public understands the sentences that are handed out and the associated mitigating and aggravating factors. We must also ensure that sentencing is victim-centred and that we look at the impacts on victims. Of course, while we do that, we also need to look at disparities and consistency in sentencing — as Doug said, the Minister will bring a sentencing reform Bill to the Assembly next year. A sentencing council would help with laying that out.

We need to look at community confidence. We need to consider children and young people. We are looking at some of those considerations in the current Justice Bill. We also need to look at enhanced restorative justice practice and approaches to look at mitigation and actually stopping crime — preventing it from occurring in the first place. As I said, we also need to have a specific sentencing framework. We are due to receive an aggravating model in relation to the hate crime element of that in the sentencing Bill next year. We must ensure that we develop evidence-based change, looking at the socio-economic factors. The stats give a clear picture and a clear story of who finds themselves in the criminal justice system and who has been impacted on by crime and offences. We need to get below the data to really understand that and, importantly, to mitigate or stop it, as well as to increase public safety and public confidence in the application of the rule of law and in our wider justice system.

I commend the motion and the Sinn Féin amendment.

Ms Bunting: I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession.

Of course sentencing should not be a populist undertaking but a punishment; a punishment that is commensurate with the crime, that is fundamentally effective and that acts as a deterrent. However, there can be no doubt that sentencing has a significant impact on the public's confidence in the criminal justice system, and, at present, that confidence is not necessarily high. Laypeople, Members included, may not fully understand the intricacies and complexities of sentencing, but they certainly recognise what is, in their view, a lenient sentence when they see it, especially for certain types of crime such as sexual crime, which is acknowledged in the motion, and animal cruelty, for which the public is often aghast and disgusted at the sentences meted out. Public discourse has been growing of late, because expectation is increasingly not meeting reality.

It is also true that the public struggles with how sentencing works in practice and with the notion that the prison sentence is only part of the sentence that a person has been directed to serve, with the rest being served on licence. There is something of an expectation that someone's sentence should be their sentence, with monitoring to follow. Of course, that would not necessarily be straightforward, and it would have repercussions for our prisons etc, but it feeds into a feeling of there being leniency: an approach to crime that is less than vigorous. Sentences should act as a deterrent, but I remain to be convinced that the public feels that they do. Evidence indicates that the public is right, and that is having consequences.

The motion states that 80% of prisoners here are repeat offenders. That is a staggering figure, indicative of something being badly wrong and that the system is failing victims and prisoners. Public confidence is also seriously eroded by excessive delays in the system, which show no signs of improvement. That can lead to some people wrongfully taking justice into their own hands or approaching paramilitary gangs for their version of swifter justice. Delays in the system lead increasingly to remand prisoners being released on time served, which is horrendous for their victims and means that they are unlikely to have engaged in any rehabilitative work whilst in prison. That is far from ideal.

They are recommended not to engage, lest that be seen as an admission of guilt. That should be looked at and worked through to ensure that any such work in prison is not necessarily regarded as detrimental to their case or an admission of wrongdoing. For people who are ultimately found guilty to be released with nothing to change their behaviour is not only bad for them; it is bad for society.

There is research into the ineffectiveness of sentences of less than 12 months. The cost of the revolving door prison and the impact on victims and society of repeat offenders' crimes mean that rehabilitation is imperative. Resettlement is just as important. The likelihood of reoffending diminishes considerably when a person has a stable home and a job. The release of prisoners on a Friday, particularly in the afternoon, is thus problematic. They do not have sufficient time to present to the Housing Executive or to make proper arrangements. They may be put into a hostel or an empty flat, with nothing, or end up back on the street, which can lead them to return to their previous chaotic life, resulting in reoffending. People in that situation whom I spoke to stated that they felt as though they were being teed up to fail.

Given that various courts have distinct sentencing limitations, what can appear to be a lenient sentence is often the result of the hearing having taken place in a lower court with lower sentencing thresholds. The PPS should therefore, when it can, take care when selecting the court to which it refers prosecutions, and the Department should review which offences are summary and which are indictable. Animal cruelty is an example. In my lifetime, I have never heard of anybody who considered that a perpetrator of such repulsive acts received the sentence that they deserved. If the offence were indictable rather than summary, the PPS would be permitted to take the perpetrator to a higher court, where the higher severity of sentences would better reflect the crime and public feeling about it and act as a deterrent. Another fundamental issue in such cases is, of course, that people are sentenced to a ban on keeping animals, but, while the Justice and AERA Ministers continue to bat the issue of a register back and forth, it becomes yet another area of no real progress. Such a ban is therefore rendered worthless, as it cannot be properly implemented or enforced.

The Lady Chief Justice (LCJ) has indicated that greater transparency in sentencing would be beneficial, as would the broadcasting of sentencing remarks in some cases. That would undoubtedly help the public to understand the judge's thinking: what was taken into account and how the sentence was reached. However, the Minister has indicated that she has neither the time nor the resources to progress that. Rightly, judges are independent, but the Minister is responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of the legislative framework. She is responsible for the effectiveness of the prison system and its rehabilitation services. She is responsible for the court service and addressing delays in it. The statistics and CJINI indicate that there is action but little by way of improvement.

We know that, in the Minister's next Bill, we should see increases in maximum sentences and the use of non-custodial methods, but, whatever it includes, it is impact that counts, and the Minister and her Department need to deliver improvements and a framework that will command public confidence.

Ms Egan: Sentencing practice is an integral cog in our wider justice machinery, and getting it right is essential to ensuring public trust and confidence in Northern Ireland's governance. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate this important subject today.

As the motion acknowledges, there will always be complex cases, each with its individualities, that come before the judiciary. Essential to that process is ensuring that judges are as well equipped as possible to make fair, balanced and substantiated decisions. Judges must be supported in that through guidance and professional development in evolving areas of legislation and practice, and delivering that is a matter for the Lady Chief Justice. It is paramount to underline at this stage that it is our role as legislators to set the sentence maxima for each offence that the court encounters, whereas sentencing decisions on the whole are determined by the independent judiciary on the basis of the circumstances of each case and the sentencing guidance that is available. The separation of those powers is important in a healthy, democratic society.

An important point that is not in the motion is that it is within the PPS's gift to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal if it believes that they are unduly lenient. About two thirds of Crown Court cases are eligible for referral, and the pending sentencing Bill will extend that further.

The judiciary have a wide range of potential sentences at their disposal. What is important, however, on the road to developing and improving sentencing practice is how those sentences are communicated and followed up on. It is in that space that public confidence is built. The decision taken on an alleged offence and the consequences of that must be appropriately communicated to the victims and witnesses, who should be at the centre of our decision-making.

Sinn Féin's amendment goes some way to encapsulating the next steps after a sentence is issued. To truly reduce reoffending and improve sentencing practice, recognising the need for true cross-government and multi-agency collaboration is instrumental. The 2023 Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report 'Reducing Adult Reoffending in Northern Ireland' also highlights why the commitment to a cross-departmental strategy on reducing reoffending in the Programme for Government is so important. The Minister of Justice is already taking proactive steps on the issues that the motion sets out. She has already announced her intention to introduce a sentencing Bill as part of her legislative programme for this mandate, alongside undertaking a wider review of sentencing issues.

I introduce into the debate the need to increase the visibility of what happens inside our courts, including an exploration of broadcasting certain proceedings while at the same time protecting vulnerable witnesses. In that context, I welcome the Department's consultation on the broadcasting of court proceedings, with its proposals that aim to support open justice, improve transparency in the conduct of court business and enhance public confidence and trust in the justice system.

The results of the Commissioner for Victims of Crime's victim survey from 2023-24 showed that 50% of those who responded:

We need to address the fact that victims and witnesses deserve an understanding of the process that they have just gone through. The draft victims and witnesses of crime strategy 2025-2030 will support that happening, as it includes a dedicated pillar on empowering victims to understand criminal justice decisions. We need to deliver for victims and witnesses in criminal and civil proceedings. A deeper and more public understanding of sentencing plays a core role in doing just that.

Mr McNulty: I support the motion, which gets to the heart of a growing crisis of confidence in our justice system. It speaks for the victims who feel let down and for the public, who rightly ask, "Where is the deterrent in our sentencing? Where is the justice?". We fully recognise and firmly defend the independence and integrity of our judiciary, but independence does not mean immunity from public scrutiny. When our courts hand down sentences that fail to reflect the severity of the crimes that were committed, that scrutiny is not only valid but essential.

The figures do not lie. In 2020, an astonishing 80% — 80% — of those who were sentenced for the offence of sexual communication with a child avoided prison, with 38% receiving suspended sentences and 42% getting community sentences. For online abuse, eight out of 10 perpetrators attract non-custodial sentences. What message does that send?

I met representatives from the Marie Collins Foundation. They are trying hard to bring about changes in sentencing, especially for sentences that relate to technology-assisted child sexual abuse. They are screaming for sentencing reform on that front. We are talking about heinous crimes that are committed against children, yet the punishment that is handed down is little more than a slap on the wrist. Where is the deterrent? Where is the justice for the victim? Where is the protection for the public? Where is the protection for children?

People may contest how technology-assisted child sexual abuse is not violence, but how else would one characterise taking a child's image through coercion, manipulation, deceit and fear and then using it to extort, threaten and maintain the pretence of a relationship? How can we say that our sentencing is appropriate, given the vile, extreme and violent online abuse that takes place?

Our justice system is not hitting the key sentencing principles of punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation has been elevated so highly that we are now not meeting the punishment threshold. The assumption is that online forms of abuse are not as damaging as contact offending. Academic research blows that out of the water, and lived experience groups can attest to how deeply damaging and long-lasting the effects of technology-assisted child sexual abuse are on their lives. The perpetual nature of such images is hugely damaging to them, and it forces victims to lead small lives.

I therefore ask this with genuine disappointment and some confusion: why does Sinn Féin want to water down the motion?

Why remove a reference to the:

especially when the motion focuses on serious offences, including sexual crime and sexual crimes against children? Is Sinn Féin really comfortable with sending out the message that it is soft on serious and sexual crime and sexual crime against children and that deterrence is somehow an optional extra in our justice system? I hope not, but that is what its amendment implies.

Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way?

Mr McNulty: Of course.

Miss Hargey: I do not know whether you just did not listen to what I said. I highlighted the fact that deterrence has to be a key factor, but we can see the statistics on repeat offenders: if we do not look at rehabilitation, we will only see increased levels of reoffending. If we want to increase public safety, we need to look at all of those aspects, not just one.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr McNulty, you have an extra minute.

Mr McNulty: Thank you.

I have read the amendment. I know what it says. Is Sinn Féin really comfortable with sending out the message that it is soft on serious and sexual crime and sexual crime against children and that deterrence is somehow an optional extra in our justice system? I hope not, but that is what its amendment implies.

Let me be absolutely clear: rehabilitation matters. The SDLP believes in giving people a path away from offending and reducing reoffending through education, support and resettlement, but rehabilitation must never replace accountability, especially in the case of serious or violent crimes and crimes against children.

Almost 80% of prisoners in Northern Ireland are repeat offenders, which is a clear and damning signal that our system is failing. We need sentencing that protects the public, deters repeat offending and meets the expectations of victims and wider society. Rehabilitation alone will not achieve that, and mitigation in the form of character references is absurd, especially in relation to child sexual abuse, given that being a good citizen is a key and integral part of grooming and getting access to children. If someone were convicted of GBH, would being a good boxer be a mitigating factor? If not, why should being a good citizen be a mitigating factor in relation to access to children?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr McNulty: Of course.

Mrs Long: For clarification, being a really good boxer could be an aggravating factor if you were involved in GBH, because you could be seen as being more skilled in what you were doing. To be clear, you can get character references with any offence. If somebody is accused of GBH, they can have character references.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You have six seconds, Justin.

Mr McNulty: That is why we support the creation of a sentencing council for Northern Ireland to provide consistency, transparency and, above all, a robustness in how justice is delivered and how children are protected.

Mr Baker: I will go down a different route in my remarks.

It is crucial that our justice system has children and young people at its heart, with a rights-based approach. I am mindful that the North has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world. Our law states that the youngest age at which a child can be charged with a crime is 10 years old. That is not in line with international human rights standards. Sentencing and punishment is not just a matter of holding young people to account but about doing so in a way that gives them a chance to grow, reconcile and build a better future. Young people are still developing mentally, emotionally and socially. Scientific research has shown that their brains are still not fully mature, especially in the areas that control decision-making and impulse. That does not excuse bad behaviour, but it does mean that we have a responsibility to treat young offenders differently from adults.

We need to understand the reasons why young people end up coming into contact with the criminal justice system. Often, children who offend have not had a fair start in life. Overwhelmingly, those children are among the most vulnerable in our society. Many of them have experienced multiple adversities and challenges in their lives, ranging from poverty to family breakdown, mental health problems and drug or alcohol issues. What happens when those young people are punished but not supported or when they leave a detention centre with no education or support, no job prospects and no one to believe in them? They go back to the only life that they know, and the cycle continues. Statistics show a high percentage of reoffending within a year of release. Instead of criminalising those young people, the disadvantage and the inequality that they face should be addressed.

Placing any child or young person in custody should always be the last option. Many children's rights advocates have highlighted serious concerns about the detrimental impact that detention can have on vulnerable children. It is essential that Departments and agencies work in tandem to provide support, education, counselling and community programmes that prevent reoffending. We need to intervene early and provide diversionary measures to make a difference in the quality of life for children and to prevent them becoming involved in crime. Every time that a child reoffends, it is a failure of the system that is supposed to support them.

Every child who breaks that cycle and turns their life around is proof that hope, support and belief are stronger than fear. Let us remember that behind every court case or police report, there is a young person who might just need to someone to believe in them and to give them an opportunity and push them in the right direction. We must invest more in rehabilitation, because, when we lift a young person up instead of locking them away, we strengthen not just their future but society as a whole. Injustice anywhere, especially towards our youth, is a threat to justice everywhere. Let us build a justice system that protects children and young people.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, and I thank Mr Beattie for proposing it.

As a party, we are fully committed to supporting measures that improve people's experiences in our criminal justice system. Victims must come first. Unfortunately, in recent years, it appears that that has not always been the case. That is highlighted in the motion, which refers to "lenient sentences". We will, hopefully, see improvement. We want to raise confidence, particularly amongst women and girls who are the victims of abuse, in people's ability to pursue prosecutions and bring perpetrators to justice. To do that, complainants, victims, defendants, witnesses and society as a whole need to have confidence in our law and justice system. Unfortunately, evidence from the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime suggests that confidence in our criminal justice system is lacking, with only 7% of respondents being fairly confident that the criminal justice system could deliver for victims of crime.

The reality is that our justice system must do better. The lack of confidence in the system will only discourage victims from coming forward. As noted in the motion, recent figures show that 80% of prisoners in Northern Ireland are classed as repeat offenders, which is a shocking statistic in 2025. That indicates a failure of sentencing to properly deter offenders and a failure of our justice system as a whole to adequately reform and rehabilitate.

In addition to the impact that they have on prisoners and reoffending rates, we must not lose sight of the impact that lenient sentences have on the victims of crime and their families. Figures that my colleague Jonathan Buckley revealed recently found that just over 10% of those who were convicted at court for sexual offences against children received a custodial sentence of more than five years. We must ask ourselves this: what kind of message does that send out about our society's ability to protect our most vulnerable and to punish those who so disgracefully prey upon them? I know that many members of the public right across Northern Ireland have shared their disgust at what they view to be sentences that do not remotely reflect the seriousness of the crime. Ironically, shorter sentences, whilst alarming the public and failing to deter would-be offenders, also often do not provide the adequate time for meaningful rehabilitation support to be put in place. To that end, the sentence fails to achieve either of its goals.

A sentencing council, as we heard, could make the sentencing process more transparent, and there is an opportunity for the Department to explore that. Many constituents raise genuine concerns about a lack of fairness in sentencing. In England and Wales, one of the key aims of the guidelines that the Sentencing Council issued is the achievement of consistency of approach in sentencing.

In conclusion, I want to touch upon a particular crime that was raised in the debate and highlighted just last week by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland's Let Them Protect campaign. I was pleased to be able to attend the event for that campaign, and I know that the Minister attended as well. It is important that we always keep focused on what we can do to protect our emergency service workers and everyone who works in the public sector. The campaign rightly calls for heavier fines and longer custodial sentences for people who commit totally unacceptable assaults on those public-sector workers. For too long, criminals have felt that they can punch, kick, spit and ram policemen and policewomen, as well as many of our other public-sector workers, without fear of serious punishment. I urge the Justice Minister to outline clearly how her Department will improve protections for all emergency service workers and help to improve the justice system, particularly for victims.

Mr Bradley: I support the motion. Confidence in the Northern Ireland criminal justice system is at a serious low, with little progress in the past 15 years since justice was devolved. There have been limited outcomes plus slow and ineffective change. Victims feel that they have been failed.

The motion is before us because we need meaningful reform. PSNI officers are also frustrated by lenient sentences, particularly for drug charges and for sexual assaults, especially on children. I agree with the proposer of the motion in calling for mandatory and ongoing judicial training. Judges must keep pace with changing societal attitudes and best practice. Mr Beattie said that a dangerous sex offender was told to find a wife. That kind of remark is unacceptable to any right-thinking person.

Lenient sentencing, especially for sexual crimes and animal cruelty, is undermining public trust. Many years ago in another setting, I was informed by a retiring senior member of the Prison Service that he felt that sexual predators could not be rehabilitated: it was an urge, and repeat offences were more than likely. That may not be what Members want to hear, but those were the thoughts of a highly experienced member of the Prison Service. Nearly 80% of prisoners are repeat offenders; a clear sign that rehabilitation is not working. Sentences must reflect the severity of the offence in order to be a real deterrent. Victims suffer years of waiting for justice only for a perpetrator to plead guilty at the last minute and get a discounted sentence, however that discount is delivered.

A sentencing council to bring consistency and clarity may not be a bad idea, and I look forward to the Member bringing that to the Chamber. Victims deserve to understand the outcome and not to be handed complex, formal and technical language or denied access to remarks altogether. Sentences must reflect the crime.

The motion is not an attack on the judiciary or the Minister. It is about restoring trust and ensuring that justice is truly served, especially for the victims of crime. I support the motion.

Mr Chambers: Criminal sentencing must meet two important criteria: the sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence, but, more important, it must be seen as a deterrent. A few years ago, we saw an advertising campaign with the slogan, "One Punch Can Kill". The message was that you did not need a gun or knife in your hand to end a life: one punch could do it. That one punch could elevate a petty argument to the perpetrator facing a murder or manslaughter charge, and that was the obvious deterrent against throwing that punch.

A growing, cowardly and vicious element is evident in street assaults, when a victim has been knocked unconscious and is unable to defend themselves, and people take turns to kick them on the head or, indeed, stamp on their head with force. I asked the Minister whether she would consider introducing legislation to cover that specific offence. I know that she shares my absolute disgust at that element of an assault. However, the Minister informed me that she has no plans to introduce a further specific offence, and she pointed me to sentencing guidelines for judges in assault cases. I was disappointed to discover that the gap between lower and higher levels of custody are measured in small numbers of months when kicks to the head are involved. In my opinion, that offers little deterrent. Assaults on the police also carry small gaps in custody guidelines, with community orders featuring. We owe it to our police officers and, indeed, to all emergency workers to bring forward a much more meaningful range of deterrent sentences.

I call on the Minister to establish a sentencing council, as is referenced in the motion, to review the scale of sentences available to the courts with a view to creating genuine deterrents for those who are considering assaulting another human being and, especially, to protect police officers, who are always on the front line.

Mr Buckley: First, I thank the Members who tabled the motion. The issue of lenient sentencing practices has concerned me for quite some time, and I have raised it in the House. From listening to the debate, I note that many Members from many political parties have expressed the same concern. In truth, our sentencing practices are in a failed state. They are crumbling, damaging public confidence and eroding trust that justice will ever be served.

From listening to today's debate, I am conscious that there is a balancing act between, on the one hand, deterrent, and, on the other hand, rehabilitation. In truth, if we are being honest, we have failed at both. The statistic that nearly 80% of prisoners in Northern Ireland are repeat offenders should send shivers down the spine of any lawmaker in this place, because it shows that we have failed in both regards. I am often reminded of Einstein's quote:

Quite often, that is the approach that is adopted in the House when it comes to sentencing.

I support some of the measures that are outlined in the motion, particularly ongoing professional training for judges. The perception — indeed, the reality — is that many judges are out of touch with the lived experiences of the constituents whom we represent. That is apparent in many of the court cases throughout the land that I read about.

We talk about dangerous times. I argue that we are in an incredibly dangerous period of our history, with the digital age and criminal offences, particularly serious criminal offences. I will focus my remarks on serious sexual abuse. In the Chamber a few months ago, I quoted the latest figures from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) that painted a horrifying picture. Crimes involving images of child sexual abuse have almost doubled in the past five years in Northern Ireland, with a staggering 98% increase in the past year. Offences have risen by 24%, with 859 cases being recorded by the PSNI in 2023-24. That means that, in the past five years, there have been 3,382 recorded crimes. It comes to the point that Mr McNulty made about the differential between online and physical contact. From dealing with constituents, my experience is that what starts off online quite often ends up with physical contact. The way in which our judiciary treats those predators is completely out of step with the lived reality of those in our communities. The deterrent is not strong enough. The rise in sexual abuse allegations and cases and, indeed, the need for community justice, as was pointed out by my colleague Ms Bunting, is a dangerous step in the road because people no longer have faith that our judiciary will deal with those people appropriately.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, through the child protection disclosure scheme, which I brought into law, there are tools to inform the public and, in particular, parents? The Department of Justice, the Minister of Justice and the PSNI refuse to promote and advertise that scheme, which would better arm parents with the information that they require to keep their children safe.

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

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I hope that the Minister will address that point in her remarks. I go back to my point: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is endemic in how our justice system serves the general public.

Of the 547 convictions for sex offences between 2019 and 2023, more than 90% received a sentence of less than five years. Is that not ridiculous, Members? Should we all not be collectively ashamed of that?

I note that the motion talks about the impact that lenient sentencing has on the victim. My colleague Mr Dunne raised it when he said that we have become victim-maker-led, rather than having a victim-centred approach, when it comes to sentencing. I have dealt with families who have had their lives turned upside down and ruined because of the sexual actions of predators who live in our community. It does not get any better when, in a number of years' time, the families see the same individuals on the streets again. Often those individuals are carrying out the same acts of violence, particularly among young women and girls.

We can do better. There is a will in the House to see this right. I encourage Members to see that there is a balance to be struck. The public genuinely understand that different cases require different sentencing. I understand that, but I have a problem with the broad categories. Whether it is sexual violence or other crimes, we must be coordinated and consistent in categorising crimes and ensuring that there is a justice system that is fair for all but is victim-centred.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the motion and the urgency that it places on sentencing reform. The focus today has, understandably, been on lenient sentencing and serious crimes such as sexual offences, and, of course, I agree with what Members have said about that. However, I will use my time to highlight another part of our justice system that receives far too little scrutiny. There is something fundamentally broken about a system that jails vulnerable women for stealing sanitary products and clothing while those who poison our communities with drugs, harm others or destroy our environment walk free with a slap on the wrist. Worse yet, some are granted anonymity.

The current system is not dispensing justice but deepening injustice. It punishes poverty, while power gets a pass. Poor women are being sent to prison for non-violent offences at an alarming rate. Some 86% of women in custody are serving sentences for non-violent offences, most commonly for low-level economic crimes of survival: shoplifting and petty crime. Two thirds are mothers, and many are the sole carers of young children. Imprisoning them does not just harm the individual but devastates entire families, making it harder to rebuild lives. Children end up in care. Mums struggle to find employment with their criminal record and can and often do fall into a downward spiral of offending and exploitation.

Many of those women are victims of abuse, addiction, mental ill-health or homelessness, and then they become victims again of a system that criminalises their desperation. A glance at local court cases in my constituency highlights the glaring imbalance in our justice system. A 31-year-old woman who expressed shame about her crime is imprisoned for eight months for shoplifting in a local Boots because she had no money. A young single mother is given jail time for stealing a £10 pair of jeans. Meanwhile, a domestic abuser who terrorised his ex-partner and whose actions were described by a judge as "utterly appalling" is handed a suspended sentence. Drug dealers are peddling poison through our estates in an area ravaged by addiction, where people young and old are dying. Anonymity orders, as I mentioned, are too often granted in such cases, and I feel deeply uneasy about that. Suspended sentences spare them jail time and anonymity shields them further, doing nothing for transparency, deterrence or the lives ruined and communities left exposed.

This is not just about women. It is about whom we punish and whom we do not. Look at what happens when people harm our communities in other ways. The Mobuoy dump is not just one of the North's, the UK's or Europe's worst environmental crimes; it will cost hundreds of millions of pounds to clean up. Yet, after a decade-long wait, justice means just a few months in jail, with no compensation sought or awarded for lasting damage.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. Given the scale of the environmental crime at Mobuoy, does he agree that it is incredible that the Executive are not calling for a public inquiry?

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

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am aware from a response by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to a question from me that he will bring a paper to his Executive colleagues seeking support for such an inquiry. It is essential that we have one, because generations here will live with the consequences.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I caution him that the matter is still sub judice, because there are ongoing proceedings. He mentioned financial recovery, and that matter is also still before the courts.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for that clarification.

The public's perception is that those responsible walk away almost untouched. Where is the deterrent? Where is the urgency? This is not just about calling for tougher sentences across the board but about ensuring that the punishment fits the crime and that justice truly means justice: the chance to break the cycle of reoffending and rebuild lives.

Behind every statistic is a story, one that does not make the front pages but matters just as much. Someone needed help but got punishment instead. Justice must protect the public, yes, but it must also protect the vulnerable, and that must not be forgotten as we pursue much-needed sentencing reform.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate, because sentencing is a vital part of the justice system in Northern Ireland and one that is frequently poorly understood. It often involves complex considerations requiring a delicate balance to be struck between the rights of defendants on the one hand and the needs and expectations of victims and the general public on the other. Furthermore, effective and appropriate sentencing policy is fundamental to the success of the Department's mission to reduce offending, deal firmly and fairly with those who offend and deal with them in a way that benefits communities and recognises the hurt that can be suffered by victims, whilst assisting offenders to change their offending behaviour and maintaining public confidence in the system more widely.

With those aims in mind, since taking office for the first time in 2020, I have been committed to improving sentencing policy in Northern Ireland. I have specifically increased the sentencing for serious sexual offences, created additional offences and introduced increases in the sentences for domestic violence and abuse crimes. It is important to note that that is the case. However, the complexity of the issues and, more significantly, the disruption to the functioning of these institutions have delayed the implementation of those plans.

Members will be aware that I plan to introduce a sentencing Bill, for which we have been waiting for some time, by the end of this year. That will include clauses to give effect to the findings of the Department's previous sentencing policy review, which was conducted in 2016-17; the creation of Charlotte's law, a range of bespoke provisions designed to encourage those who kill in no-body murder cases to reveal the whereabouts of their victims' remains; and the creation of a statutory aggravator model in hate crime cases. The Member will be pleased to know that the Bill will also introduce, in relation to the issue of enhanced sentencing, an aggravating factor for those who work in public service or deliver a public duty. The measures in the proposed Bill are designed to increase public safety, reduce reoffending and help to create a more effective, transparent and efficient justice system, aligning with the Programme for Government's safer communities priority and the aim that everyone should feel safe and that we all respect the law and one another.

From listening to today's discussion, I know that perceptions of what sentencing should be and should do vary widely around the Chamber. The Department's previous sentencing policy review considered that it would be desirable to have a clear understanding of the principles and purposes of sentencing, as that can improve clarity, awareness and understanding of and public confidence in sentencing and, while not treading on judicial independence, might assist the courts with achieving consistency in their sentencing decisions. The sentencing Bill will therefore also make provision for the principles and purposes of sentencing for adult offenders.

The principles will be that there should be proportionality, fairness and transparency. The purposes will be punishment, protection of the public, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation, because paying something back to society when a person has committed an offence is an important part of the process.

During this mandate, I also intend to undertake a further review of sentencing issues that have emerged since the previous review was completed. Sentencing guideline mechanisms will be one of the issues that I intend to include for consideration in the review, with one potential option being the introduction of a sentencing council for Northern Ireland, as is proposed in the motion. When considering the utility of such an organisation, it will be important to take into account the particular needs of our own jurisdiction and criminal justice system. That will be done by learning from other jurisdictions and also by taking on board the views of other stakeholders involved. Although the Member said that he intends to bring forward something as part of the proposed sentencing Bill, I think that it would be wrong for him to do so ahead of a fully considered and consulted-on process that looks at the utility and value for money that a sentencing council would bring versus what we have at the moment under the auspices of the LCJ.

We are also planning to look at other sentencing reviews. We have identified a number of issues for consideration, including the use of character references — an issue that was also raised today — although we will look at those in particular in domestic and sexual violence trials; sentences for serious sexual offences; and sentences for drug offences. All those matters have been touched on today, as we recognise that they are of serious concern. We will also consider recommendations arising from the recent review of sentencing in England and Wales. If further legislation is considered necessary, that will lead to a further sentencing Bill at a future point, which will hopefully be well informed by public feedback.

In practice, the challenging task of determining an appropriate sentence —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will the issues that she has spoken about broadly, all of which were raised during the debate, also take into account bail conditions? In a number of cases, even quite recent ones, bail conditions have often meant that perpetrators can go out and do the very same thing that they were doing before. Ultimately, there seems to be very little accountability under the system.

Mrs Long: I am happy to have a separate discussion about bail conditions, but the focus of the considerations will be on sentencing. Bail does not apply to those who are sentenced. It is certainly something that we can have a chat about down the line, however.

In practice, the skilled judiciary have the job of delivering fair and appropriate sentences independently of government in every case that comes before the courts, based on the evidence that is presented. Sentencing is a complex issue, and it is unique in each case. Judges have to consider carefully all the factors that relate to a case, along with any sentencing guidance, which is a matter for the courts, and established sentencing principles before they come to their final determination. As is stated in the motion, judicial guidance and training are managed by the Lady Chief Justice and delivered by the Judicial Studies Board. Any attempt to intervene or to direct in that regard would be a major encroachment on judicial independence. It is important that we listen to the LCJ on those issues.

Where a sentence is considered unduly lenient, the Director of Public Prosecutions can refer an eligible case to the Court of Appeal for consideration within 28 days of sentencing. Over the past year or so, we have seen a number of cases being so referred. At present, approximately two thirds of Crown Court sentences fall within the scope of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. My proposed sentencing Bill, however, will include provision to extend the arrangements to apply to all sentences that are imposed in the Crown Court. That approach takes account of feedback received during the Department's most recent sentencing policy review and aims to make the scheme more transparent and easily understood in order to ensure that it achieves maximum impact and improves confidence in sentencing.

Mr Beattie: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: Yes.

Mr Beattie: Minister, I welcome what you have just said, but it does not take Magistrates' Court sentencing into account. Can the scheme be extended in any way to take in the Magistrates' Court? We are seeing similar sentences when cases are referred to there.

Mrs Long: I do not propose to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme to the Magistrates' Court, for the reason that the difference between the maxima and the minima in the Magistrates' Court is so small that it would clog up the courts with consideration of something that may amount to only a month or two of a difference. Doing so would therefore diminish the scheme's purpose. There is, however, a wider issue that someone else touched on, which concerns careful consideration of where the PPS decides to prosecute a case and whether it decides to do that summarily or on indictment.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for giving way. Minister, you will be aware that the Marie Collins Foundation has asked that the unduly lenient sentence scheme be extended to all cases involving technology-assisted child sexual abuse. Do you support that call?

Mrs Long: Sentencing in any cases that are heard at the Crown Court will be included.

It is also important to highlight that decisions on where an offence is tried are made independently and on a case-by-case basis and take into account a variety of factors, including whether the court has sufficient sentencing powers to reflect the seriousness of the offence. Often, the sentences that people are concerned about are those that are handed down by the Magistrates' Court, but it should be noted that the maximum sentence for most cases in the Magistrates' Court is two years. Therefore, the decision to prosecute in the Magistrates' Court automatically limits what is available to the judiciary in those cases.

I move on to the issue of repeat offending in the context of prisons. Despite the Northern Ireland Prison Service facing acute challenges against the backdrop of a significant rise in the prison population, many members of which have increasingly complex needs, it continues to seek to prioritise rehabilitation and support and to challenge prisoners to change and address their offending behaviour to reduce their risk of reoffending on release. The Prison Service works with partners in the statutory, voluntary and community, pastoral and education sectors to deliver a range of programmes and interventions to encourage desistance from reoffending on release. They range from support for dealing with addictions, mental health challenges and past trauma to programmes that support parenting skills and change attitudes that lead to violence against women and girls. Those programmes are kept under constant review to ensure that they align with the needs and priorities of the prison population.

When I talk about complex needs, it is also worth referring to what Mr Durkan said about the number of women who are remanded in custody or face custodial sentences. Often, prison is seen as being the provider of last resort. If people have issues with addiction or mental health, a judge will often remand them in custody to put them into a place of safety. One of the difficulties is that so many of our women feel that Hydebank Wood is the safest place for them to be. It is a real challenge if they do not feel safe at home or in the community but do feel safe and protected when they are with us in prison, because that is not where we should be dealing with those issues.

A wide range of educational, vocational and employability skills are under continuous review, and the Prison Service has introduced additional services from statutory partners in prisons to enhance the support that is available for prisoners in the weeks leading up to their release. Those services include access to Housing Executive advisers to assist with accommodation planning and engagement with DFC work coaches to support employability and benefit readiness. Evidence shows that individuals are less likely to reoffend, as the Chair of the Justice Committee said, if they can access appropriate practical support and develop social bonds as they return to the community. Preparation for release is complex. We do not have a responsibility to people once they have gone through the prison door and we cannot intervene beyond the prison gate. At that point, responsibility passes to other members of the Executive regarding housing, communities and other things. Our responsibility is to draw those organisations through the gate and into the prison to provide that support. It is also worth noting that the LCJ has moved remand hearings to earlier in the week so that they do not happen on a Friday, because they often lead to people being released from prison without adequate support being in place, at short notice and without due warning.

Although custodial sentences are often perceived to be a strong deterrent against offending and reoffending, evidence shows that reoffending can be reduced through rigorous sentences that are served in the community and that, with the right investment, community sentences can succeed where short prison sentences fail. There has been a lot of discussion about the impact of deterrents. However, many of the offences that are committed in Northern Ireland are impulsive acts and are the result of choices that have been made by often volatile and vulnerable individuals who are living complex and chaotic lives. The degree to which those people are considering what sentence they might get if they are caught is rather limited, so we should not place an over-reliance on the deterrent effect of sentencing when it comes to individuals of that nature.

From our perspective, it is about trying to address the vulnerabilities to reduce the offending behaviours. Reoffending information shows that the rate of reoffending for adult offenders who were sentenced to a community order was nearly half that of adult offenders who were subject to a custodial sentence of fewer than 12 months. You cannot argue with those facts. If we are getting better results in the community and we are truly victim-focused, that is where we should be doing the work because that is how we will prevent more victims being created. That is why the Department has supported the roll-out of enhanced combination orders, which is a community based alternative to short prison sentences. This year, having been provided with some additional funding from the Department, the Probation Service is preparing to expand the availability of that to a further court area in 2025-26.

We also know that other approaches can address reoffending. Early intervention projects have the ability to break the cycle of reoffending. Intervening upstream prevents future offending and reduces the number of victims. That includes addressing the intergenerational cycle of offending, where a grandparent, parent and child in a family have all had interaction with the justice system. However, reducing offending and reoffending and supporting rehabilitation are not solely the responsibility of the Department of Justice. In practice, that relies on cross-Executive and multi-agency collaboration. That is one of the pieces of work that we are doing, as set out in the Programme for Government commitment, on working collectively to develop a cross-departmental strategy to reduce offending and reoffending. My officials have started engagement across government to progress that. I am really pleased, actually, at the level of interest and commitment that there has been to date from other Departments.

I have had the privilege in my role of meeting many victims and survivors who have shared their lived experience of the justice system. I recognise how helpful it can be for victims to be able to read what was said at sentencing hearings in slower time in order to aid their understanding and support their recovery from the impact of the crime. The Department has been working in conjunction with key stakeholders to look at options for providing victims with access to transcripts, taking account of the findings from a recent pilot exercise that was undertaken in other jurisdictions. That will fall within the scope of the draft victims and witnesses of crime strategy, which is out for public consultation at the moment.

Let me be clear: rehabilitation is not the enemy of victims being at the heart of the justice system. Rehabilitation is about how we place victims at the heart of the justice system by ensuring that we do not see people reoffend and create more victims and that perpetrators are brought to be challenged and confronted about the impact of their crimes —

A Member: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I cannot, unfortunately. I am about to finish.

— so that we know that people will not go on to reoffend and create further trauma in the community and that victims will be recognised. That is one of the reasons why the work that the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime has done, for example, has been incredibly important in placing them at the heart of the system.

In closing, I reinforce my commitment to improve sentencing policy in Northern Ireland. It is vital but complex, and it needs sensitive handling. I want to work collaboratively with key stakeholders, including Members. However, if we want to increase confidence in the justice system, talking it down in the media and the House on a daily basis is not the way in which to do it. Let us work together constructively and find the solutions that will build that confidence for us all.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Ciara Ferguson. Ciara, you have up to five minutes.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We all have a duty to ensure that justice is accessible to all in our society. That is why issues such as access to legal aid, fair sentencing and improvements in rehabilitation and restorative justice are fundamental. Whilst the most recent report will not be published until later this year, the findings in the prison population report for 2023-24 are stark. The daily prison population here has increased by 11·4%. The average daily immediate custody population has increased by 10%.

I thank those who tabled the motion and acknowledge the line in the motion that highlights the issues and the rate of reoffending, which is nearly 80%. The Audit Office 2023 report on reducing adult reoffending rightly sets out some of the factors that are required to be dealt with to address the root causes of reoffending, including stable housing; access to education and employment; mental health and well-being; dealing with substance dependence; reliable relationships; and social support. That is a fundamental point to raise in the debate about problem-solving justice collectively and in the context of the current draft anti-poverty strategy. It is important for us all to engage continually with the individuals and organisations who work at the coalface of tackling poverty and inequality. That includes the many different voluntary and community sector groups that support the Probation Board and the Prison Service by working in the provision of rehabilitation and resettlement services, such as Through the Gate, Housing Rights and Beyond the Gate and many others. We know the linkages between poverty, homelessness and reoffending.

The purpose of sentencing guidelines that lay down the maximum or, in some cases, minimum sentences that are available for specific offences is to increase the transparency, consistency and reliability of judicial decision-making and not only to help individuals, including victims and witnesses, to better understand the process but to build public confidence. We acknowledge that there have been several consultations on sentencing issues since the 2012 announcement from the Department of Justice of the review into sentencing guidelines here. Additionally, there have been several useful reports from the Criminal Justice Inspection, Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee and, indeed, the Gillen review. We agree with the Human Rights Commission's recommendations in its submission to the Department of Justice sentencing review consultation back in February 2020 that support the need for commitment to restorative and reparative approaches to community sentencing.

Sinn Féin supports the need for a clear, human rights framework for sentencing, with a comprehensive statement of principles and purposes of sentencing, to help direct the broad purposes of punishment: protection of the public, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation. We acknowledge the broad principles currently around sentencing, as laid out in the R v Gavin Coyle 2024 case in the Court of Appeal and guidelines from the Lady Chief Justice's Sentencing Group. We also believe that there is a need to reform sentencing guidelines procedures here to tackle any perceived lack of fairness or inconsistency in sentencing judgements. That is fundamental not only to protect public confidence but to encourage victims of crime to come forward and prevent further trauma, particularly prevalent for victims of hate crime, sex crime or drug crime.

Our party supported the introduction of sentencing guidelines in the Twenty-six Counties for the establishment of the Judicial Council Bill. Our spokespeople rightly raised the issue of judicial training, including adequate training on domestic abuse and trauma, due to cases sometimes evidencing a lack of understanding or displaying attitudes that have dated poorly. Whilst there must be respect for the independence of the judiciary, that does not mean that there should not be support for fostering a common judicial culture with regard to core issues and greater clarity in respect of sentencing guidelines. As outlined in the European Judicial Training Network conference, issues such as gender equality cannot simply be decreed but must be embedded in the system through training and changes in habits. We believe that the establishment of a sentencing council would go some way to ensuring that sentences match the seriousness and severity of the crimes, mainstreaming policy and increasing public awareness and confidence in sentencing and in access to justice within our criminal justice system more generally.

I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Ciara. I call Robbie Butler. Robbie, you have up to 10 minutes' speaking time.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. It has been a genuinely excellent debate. I enjoyed all the contributions, and I will reference some of those when I get through a number of points that I want to make myself.

Our justice system must do more than just process cases, as has been reiterated by many today. It must inspire confidence that justice is being served, because the purpose of justice, in its pure sense, is to give justice to the victims. Whilst I agree with the Minister and with the amendment that rehabilitation must form a crucial part of that, the first role of the judiciary is to see that justice is done.

Today's motion speaks of the growing crisis in confidence, where victims, survivors and the wider public are left questioning whether the sentences handed down truly reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. I note in some of the commentary, which has been fair, that we must separate serious crime with enduring harm from petty crime, because they are two very different things.

The Ulster Unionist Party recognises the independence and integrity of the judiciary, and we must not lose sight of the fact that the judiciary has paid a heavy price in this country over many years. The motion respects that and acknowledges the complexity of the cases that come before the courts — it is never easy — but the motion also recognises the importance that ongoing judicial training, as directed by the Lady Chief Justice, should be central to that.

The motion confronts a deeply uncomfortable truth: for many victims and, probably more noticeably, members of the public, sentencing decisions in some of the most serious crimes, including violent assaults, repeat offending and, yes, sexual offences against children, have been perceived as lenient to the point of injustice. I need only to go back to 2023, when a deeply disturbing case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions: two men were convicted — one, after the trial — on a guilty plea. They were found guilty of rape and sexual abuse of a child who was under 13, alongside offences relating to class A drugs and the unlawful removal of that child. One received a nine-year sentence and the other just 6·5 years, yet the Court of Appeal, while accepting the concerns about leniency from the Director of Public Prosecutions, declined to alter the sentence because it could not — because the law stipulates that the judge or the court must have got it wrong; whether it was lenient or not is not something that the Court of Appeal can look at.

That is wrong. It is utterly wrong.

That is not just a legal technicality. It cuts to the heart of public faith in the justice system, a system that is considered to be unduly lenient when it undermines confidence in justice. Even then, courts may choose not to intervene, as I have outlined. That gap between principle and practice is what the motion is trying to address. I welcome the fact that the Minister has put on record some of the changes that she intends to make, but I am not sure that they encapsulate the situation that I have just outlined, which is the difference between the DPP asking for a lenient sentence to be looked at and it being fixed to the ground, because, if the court did not make a mistake in the sentencing, it cannot be found to have been too lenient.

We see the consequences of inaction in —

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate it. The issue is that, when it is taken to the Court of Appeal, three appellate court judges will sit and consider whether the sentence was appropriately given. A degree of judicial discretion applies in all such cases. To suggest that it should be automatically overturned simply because it was appealed suggests that the judgement in every case of an unduly lenient sentence would pass to the PPS.

Mr Butler: I totally accept and agree with the Minister's point, but it is not the point that I was making. I was not suggesting that it was thought to be too lenient; I was saying that it was found to be too lenient, but the court could do nothing about it because the process had been followed. That was my point. That is what is wrong: if the court understands that the sentence that was passed down was too lenient but can do nothing about it because the process had been followed, the process needs to be looked at.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: I will let you in again in a wee minute or two, because I am going to mention you again.

Mrs Long: The reason —.

Mr Butler: I will let you in again in a minute or two. I want to make a bit of progress, if that is OK.

I want to make this point: we see the consequences of inaction played out in the public space with the rise of self-styled online child protection groups. Most of us probably see them in our Facebook feeds. We can understand why they are there. Sometimes, perhaps, those groups put themselves in danger and act in ways that may be seen to be inappropriate by the police or the judiciary, but their core aim is to address what they perceive to be lenient sentencing, particularly around child harm. If they feel that the judiciary or we are failing them, they will act. It is our job to reflect their frustrations. That should set alarm bells ringing. The justice system should never leave the public feeling that they must take matters into their own hands. I am not suggesting that —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: If you are brief, Minister.

Mrs Long: I have two quick things. First, if the process is followed, it could be within the discretion of the judge; that is the point that I was making. Secondly, I hope that the Member is going to clarify that he does not agree that vigilantism is ever acceptable.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister. I never used the word "vigilantism": I referred to "self-styled online child protection groups" — [Interruption.]

If that is what you want to call them, Minister, fill your boots.

I will not hold the debate to one type of crime, which is what we have centred around. There was public outrage more recently about the torture and killing of animals. I will refer to one instance to reorientate us. Members will remember the appalling death of Luna the dog, and the fact that the perpetrator's sentencing seemed to be disconnected from the harm that was enacted. I remind the House of what, unfortunately, happened: the dog was beaten with a breeze block and then buried alive. The sentence was 17 weeks or something. It was absolutely appalling.

It has been noted today that nearly 80% of prisoners in Northern Ireland are repeat offenders. That tells us everything that we need to know. The current system is not working. Guys, I used to work in the Prison Service; it is an awfully difficult job. I will shout about it, because it is a job that I loved dearly. One of the failures that we have — it is not necessarily mentioned in the motion — is the fact that there are too many individuals in our prisons. I think that it was Mr Durkan who spoke about the gender disparity: I totally agree with him. Our judiciary cannot even send some people to the right places. Our jails are full of people who, perhaps, need more help with mental health issues or addictions and stuff. That stops us providing the proper rehabilitation of the inmates who are there. We cannot rehabilitate properly when we do not have the space and capacity and when the staff are beleaguered. We will work with the Minister to fix those things.

The motion calls for urgent reform, including a consultation on a sentencing council for Northern Ireland, and the basic dignity for victims of receiving a written copy of sentencing remarks.

I will very briefly go through some of the comments that were made, and the Minister might want to make a point of clarity. Justin McNulty reminded us that it is not just about in-contact crime; there is also the rise of digital crime. That is something that we need to get ahead of. Mark H talked about gender inequality. When you talked about that, Mark, the thought that sprang to my mind was that perhaps there is more space in the women's prison and therefore women are more likely to be handed a judicial sentence. That indicates that we are not passing sentence on men because there is no room for them, which is bonkers.

Mrs Long: That is not the case.

Mr Butler: I said that it might be.

Mrs Long: It is not.

Mr Butler: Well, I am just suggesting.

I thank Danny Baker from West Belfast, because he talked about the need to separate this from children. If we want to get ahead of the stream, we need to put a big effort into making sure that our young children do not fall foul of the sins of their fathers and mothers or whatever and do not end up in the judicial system. Joanne Bunting was forensic, as usual, in her analysis of the gaps and the failures. Jonny Buckley spoke of his experience of helping individuals affected by lenient sentences and then seeing people walking the streets and the fear that that instils. That is why I go back to the fact that the public do not have confidence. That is why we are here today. It is not about my ability, as someone with absolute experience; what we are reflecting today is the pressure that is felt in the community.

I welcome most of what the Minister suggested, but there is one question that I will ask. You said at the start of your opening remarks that sentencing is misunderstood, but you did not say who it was misunderstood by. Can you tell me who you meant when you said that sentencing, including lenient sentencing, was misunderstood?

Mrs Long: Sentencing process and guidance — how it operates, who is responsible for it: the entire structure — is misunderstood by people in the House and by the general public. One of the reasons why we want to provide that clarity in the sentencing Bill that will come forward this year is to aid understanding of how sentencing works.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Butler, you have 15 seconds.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for clearing that up. I disagree: I do not think that the public misunderstand that aspect of sentencing. They understand that, for serious crime, sentences are too lenient and that, in some cases, no justice is handed out to victims.