Official Report: Monday 16 March 2026

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate that by rising in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted, and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Mr Sheehan: Rinneadh achomharc Rialtas na Breataine in aghaidh Liam Óig Uí Annaidh a dhíbhe, agus tá sin ceart agus cóir. Níor cheart an t-achomharc a dhéanamh sa chéad dul síos. Ba chóir do Rialtas na Breataine a n-aird a dhíriú ar lucht déanta an chinedhíothaithe, chan ar na daoine atá ag tarraingt aird air. Seo agaibh ceartas na Breataine: coirpeach a dhéanamh den té a labhraíonn amach i gcoinne an chinedhíothaithe. Ba chóir don Bhreatain a bheith ar a dícheall ag tabhairt lucht déanta an chinedhíothaithe chun cuntais; níor chóir di bheith rannpháirteach sa chinedhíothú sin.

Níor bhain an cás in aghaidh Liam Óig riamh le sábháilteacht an phobail ná le riar an cheartais. Ní raibh ann ach an stát ag mí-úsáid a chumhachta le ceoltóir a ghéarleanúint cionn is go labhraíonn sé amach go neamhbhalbh ar son mhuintir na Palaistíne atá faoi chois.

Molaim Liam Óg agus Kneecap as an fhód a sheasamh go daingean nuair atá daoine eile ar a seacht ndícheall lena gcur ina dtost. Níl aon amhras orm ná go gcoinneoidh siad leo an gléas cainte atá acu a úsáid leis an éagóir a thabhairt chun solais, ainneoin dhícheall Rialtas na Breataine coirpigh a dhéanamh díobh agus a gcur ina dtost.

Mr Brett: This week, Emma Little-Pengelly will lead the Northern Ireland delegation to Washington DC to embark on a series of engagements with politicians, business leaders and diplomats. This part of the United Kingdom enjoys privileged access to the corridors of power each March. It is vital that we never waste that opportunity and that we play our part. For Northern Ireland, the idea of the special relationship with the United States is not just something that we talk about; it is something that we live and feel, and it is renewed with every generation. It is written into family histories, shared stories, classrooms, boardrooms and the way in which we see the world.

This year will be particularly significant for Northern Ireland, as a number of events are planned to mark the role that Ulster Scots played in the formation of modern America. Two hundred and fifty years on from the Declaration of Independence, those bonds remain strong. The United States remains Northern Ireland's largest source of high-value foreign direct investment. Over the past decade, American companies have created over 15,000 jobs here in Northern Ireland, with a contribution of over £1·5 billion, and that is because, like me, the American investors believe in Northern Ireland. Recent investments, such as the announcement of 1,000 jobs in the Bank of America, point to something bigger than individual projects. They reflect confidence in this place, in our people and in our economy. From fintech and cybersecurity to advanced manufacturing and the creative industries that now attract major international productions, Northern Ireland is telling a new story: one of confidence, creativity and connection.

That is why US/Northern Ireland trade matters: not because of balance sheets or job numbers but because it reflects a partnership rooted in history and based on a belief in Northern Ireland and our people. We believe deeply in that special relationship, and I am confident that, together, we will see more investment here in Northern Ireland. While others fail to show up, turn up and speak up for Northern Ireland, Emma Little-Pengelly will be out there flying the flag for Northern Ireland and showing why she is the only person befitting of the title of "First Minister for all".

Mr Honeyford: Over the past number of days and weeks, there has been a lot of political noise around energy prices and oil prices, but the reality for households is much simpler. People outside this Building are really worried. Working people are already struggling, families are trying to manage household budgets and pensioners are wondering what the next heating bill will look like.

I was at the Economy Committee this morning, and, frankly, I left angry at the political pantomime that played out around an issue that directly affects people's lives. Today's Committee meeting was supposed to provide clarity. Families in Lagan Valley and beyond have seen their heating bills double in a matter of weeks, and they deserve answers. Instead, what unfolded today was a spectacle: a political row between the DUP and Sinn Féin that generated considerably more heat than the £81 million that we were there to discuss. The two parties traded accusations across the table, and half a million of our householders who rely on home heating oil were no better off by the time that we left. This place needs to give hope, bring delivery and support quickly and have a plan for a long-term ambition that things will change in the future. It should not be a clickbait pantomime between the DUP and Sinn Féin. Energy prices should never be used as a political football, because, behind every headline, there is a family struggling.

If support is limited, it must be targeted properly at those who are struggling most. We need to have an honest discussion about the bigger issue, which is that we remain far too exposed to global fossil fuel price shocks. As night follows day, we see a war and then disruption to oil and gas markets, and households here feel it immediately. This is a repeat of 2022, and it cannot happen again. We do not have energy security; we have complete energy vulnerability. Therefore, we need to move at speed to deliver short-term help to working families while focusing on long-term solutions. We need greater transparency in the market for home heating oil, and, as prices spike, we need targeted support for householders now. We also need a really clear plan to transition to renewables in order to secure locally produced energy that protects people from similar shocks in the future. This is all about people. The Department for the Economy needs to lead and come back with answers and a plan as soon as possible.

Dr Aiken: Last week, along with our party leader, I was involved in talks with our Prime Minister and, separately, with the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Minister for Defence, Helen McEntee TD. We raised with both of them the very real concerns about the lack of defence and security provisions of our Southern neighbour. Those concerns have recently been further exemplified by the Iranian cyberattacks on the US medtech company Stryker; the Russian drone incursions when President Zelenskyy's aircraft was trying to land at Dublin Airport; the movement of Russia's grey and dark fleet ships travelling unmonitored through Ireland's extensive but unpatrolled exclusive economic zone; the highly suspicious movements of the Yantar, the Russian navy's main underwater research ship, near and above sensitive data, power and gas cables and pipes; and the cyberattack that brought down the Irish health system, which, again, was attributed to criminal gangs controlled by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB).

Irish sea, subsea, airspace and cyberspace are wide open for exploitation or worse. That is a very real concern for us because, for instance, our integrated single electricity market (ISEM) — our electricity market and system — is controlled from Dublin. Our agribusiness relies a lot on just-enough, just-in-time access to Irish business and data sharing. We have to be aware that any loss of gas to the Irish Republic will result in rapid and catastrophic failure of its electricity grid. There simply is not enough interconnection to stabilise the Irish grid, especially with the very high preponderance that they have of supplying power-hungry data centres.

It was good to see that, on Friday, the Irish recognised their vulnerabilities and reached out to the United Kingdom to formally ask it to take responsibility for the security of Irish seas and airspace. It could be surmised, although I have no knowledge of it, that the cyberdefensive power of GCHQ in Cheltenham has also been requested. Keeping the Irish secure is of interest to us. A strand 2/3 issue of the Belfast Agreement is something that we should keep an eye on. However, we also believe that the United Kingdom should be properly compensated for that. Anyone who has been following recent news stories will know that both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have been hard stretched. It is right and proper that, if our forces are deployed to defend Ireland, which has, indeed, freeloaded on its commitment for decades, we should be paid. After all, Ireland keeps telling us that it is in robust fiscal health — no doubt because it has not previously paid for any defence. At the very least, Ireland should drop its court case on legacy against the United Kingdom. Why would it sue the UK over its use of the military whilst, at the exact same time, beg the UK to save its industry and the EU presidency later this year from Putin and his acolytes' interference? Hypocrisy should not be a basis for cooperation in these dangerous times.

Mr McGrath: Tuesday is St Patrick's Day. Right around the globe, people will celebrate all that is green. At its heart, it is a day about unity. St Patrick's story is one of reconciliation and bringing people together. That is the spirit in which it should always be marked.

I represent South Down and am a native of Downpatrick, a town that is proud to be the resting place of our national saint. Indeed, there are three saints buried there, but St Patrick is, of course, the most notable. Our area is steeped in that patrician heritage, from the statue of St Patrick on Slieve Patrick and Saul to the landing place along the River Quoile and to Down Cathedral, where he is laid to rest. The story and legacy of St Patrick are told wonderfully at the St Patrick's Centre in Downpatrick, the only centre in the world that is dedicated entirely to him. It is well worth a visit. His influence runs right through our community life. Our chapel bears his name and our schools reflect that tradition. Of course, the Patrician Youth Centre, an organisation that I have been proudly associated with for nearly 40 years, continues to serve young people across our area and has his name in the title.

Celebrations are already well under way. Yesterday saw the hugely successful Jimmy's 10k in Downpatrick. Well done to everyone who took part in that. Unfortunately, a hamstring injury that I picked up last week prevented me from participating

, but I hope to be there next year. I appreciate that Laura Devlin from my office represented us there. Congratulations to everyone in the East Down Athletic Club for their sterling leadership of that wonderful event that brings people to our town.

Tomorrow, the county town of Down will be alive with activity. Events will take place in the Down Arts Centre, at Down County Museum, in the St Patrick's Centre and around Down Cathedral, as well as throughout the streets of our town. Our colourful St Patrick's Day parade will set off at 1.30 pm. I encourage anyone who can to come along to enjoy the spectacle and support the local shops and hospitality afterwards. Downpatrick has it all. It has St Patrick. There can be no better place to be on 17 March than there.

Mr McHugh: Beidh Lá Fhéile Pádraig ann amárach. Lá ar a ndéanfar gach a mbaineann le hÉirinn a cheiliúradh ar fud an domhain. Beidh ár gcultúr, ár n-oidhreacht agus an tionchar atá againn ar fud an domhain á gceiliúradh i ngach cearn den chruinne. Ó Bhéal Feirste go Nua-Eabhrac agus ó Sydney go Chicago, beidh na milliúin daoine ag ceiliúradh Lá Fhéile Pádraig le mórshiúlta, le ceol agus le hócáidí.

Cuimhníonn sé dúinn go láidir go bhfuil éifeacht dhomhanda ag cultúr na hÉireann agus go bhfuil bród ar dhaoine ar fud an domhain as a n-oidhreacht Éireannach. Beidh na milliúin daoine a mhothaíonn nasc le hÉirinn, trína nginealach nó tríd an mhéid a thug muid don domhan, beidh sin ag ceiliúradh ár n-oileáin. Beidh mórshiúl againn i lár chathair Bhéal Feirste, agus ina dhiaidh sin beidh Ceiliúradh Mór na Féile Pádraig ann. Tabharfaidh imeachtaí an lae amárach léargas dúinn ar an phléisiúr atá i ndán don chathair nuair a thiocfaidh an fhleadh sa tsamhradh, agus i samhradh na bliana seo chugainn fosta, nó d'fhógair Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann go bhfillfidh an fhleadh ar Bhéal Feirste sa bhliain 2027.

Molaim do gach duine páirt a ghlacadh sna himeachtaí áitiúla lenár gcultúr comhchoiteann, ár n-oidhreacht chomhchoiteann agus an éifeacht a rinne muid ar fud an domhain a cheiliúradh. Guím beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig daoibh go léir.

Mr Frew: To state the obvious, this is a Chamber of robust debate, and so it should be. With that robustness come the scrutiny of legislation and the agreeing of motions in this place. It is right and proper that a legislature is robust and challenging so that the laws that we pass are appropriate.

I was alarmed to hear the commentary from the Alliance Party's conference at the weekend, at which it was stated that an individual Minister — Justice Minister Long — was being demonised by unionist politicians. I am sorry, but we will not be deflected from doing our duty and job of scrutinising the Minister. It is a bit rich that the party referred only to unionist politicians, given that I have heard on many occasions in this place the official Opposition — the SDLP — challenge the Justice Minister. The Justice Minister has also blamed them for being personal, yet the remarks from the Alliance Party's conference at the weekend targeted only unionist politicians. Why is that? I believe that it is nothing more than tactical for a number of reasons. Not only does the Alliance Party position itself on the spectrum here closely in line with the SDLP and Sinn Féin, but it does not like scrutiny or questions. The Justice Minister also does not like questions, but we will not be deflected from our job in the Assembly of scrutinising Ministers, no matter who they are.

As Justice Chairperson, I will ensure that the Committee is given full strength of arm to scrutinise the Department properly. We will not be put off by personal attacks or slanderous remarks. We are demonising no one; we hold everyone to account in the Chamber, as we should. I held the post of Chairperson of the Justice Committee 10 years ago, and I now hold it again. I look at the Justice Department, and I can tell you that the deterioration in our justice system is stark. The Public Prosecution Service tells us that the median time for court cases is now 750 days: that is 200 days longer than in 2020. That is what is wrong with the justice system.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Paul.

Mr Frew: We will continue to scrutinise it.

Mr Blair: I rise to mark Global Recycling Day, which is celebrated each year on 18 March. The Global Recycling Foundation established the day in 2018 to recognise recycling as the seventh resource, alongside water, oil, natural gas, coal, minerals and air. Since then, Global Recycling Day has grown into an international call to action, reminding Governments, businesses and individuals that what we once saw as waste is, in fact, a vital resource in the fight against climate change and environmental degradation. It will come as no surprise to Members when I say that recycling is key to cutting emissions, conserving resources and reducing pollution. By reusing materials rather than extracting new ones, we reduce the pressure on our land, water and air. At a time of global instability and rising costs, a strong recycling system also supports green jobs and a more resilient circular economy.

The Alliance Party has consistently led the way on waste and recycling policy at every level of government. In local government, Alliance councillors have driven improvements in kerbside recycling and food waste collection; championed better information for residents; pushed for investment in modern recycling infrastructure; and worked to ensure that reusing and recycling are championed over landfill and incineration. In the Executive, the Alliance Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has continued that leadership. He has introduced measures to increase household and business recycling rates, supported the planned introduction of the extended producer responsibility scheme and backed steps towards a deposit return scheme, to name but three actions. Those are practical, evidence-based actions that will help Northern Ireland move away from a throwaway culture and towards a genuinely sustainable system of resource management.

Our recycling rates have improved markedly over the past decade, and, in some areas, they are comparable to those in other parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland. We still, however, lag behind many of the best-performing regions in Europe, where recycling rates are substantially higher than ours.

On Global Recycling Day 2026, we should be clear that recycling is not a niche environmental issue. Every person in Northern Ireland has a role to play in making sure that their waste is disposed of correctly and recognising that what we throw away is, in fact, a valuable resource. Alliance will continue to show leadership at every level of government to ensure that Northern Ireland moves decisively towards higher rates of recycling, less waste and a genuine circular economy.

Ms Hunter: I will inject some positivity into the Chamber this afternoon. Last night, many of us across Ireland felt immense and enormous pride watching Jessie Buckley step on to the world's biggest stage to accept an Oscar for best actress. For a young woman from Killarney to reach the pinnacle of international cinema is truly remarkable, but journeys such as Jessie Buckley's do not begin on red carpets in Hollywood; they begin in our school halls, in local theatres, in youth and drama groups and through community arts programmes. Those are the very places where local talent is first discovered and where confidence, particularly that of our young people, begins to grow.

What makes the moment especially meaningful for those of us on the north coast is that the film 'Hamnet' is based on the novel by Coleraine-born writer Maggie O'Farrell. Her powerful storytelling helped bring a remarkable story to life and, thankfully, on to the global stage. That connection reminds us that extraordinary creative talents exist not only in the world's major cities but right here in our communities at home. That is why it is so crucial that we fund the arts locally. Local arts programmes give so many people, particularly our young people, the opportunity to build their confidence and to imagine futures that they may never have thought possible. Somewhere in Northern Ireland today, young people are writing their first story, stepping on to a small stage or discovering their voice through music or drama. If we support opportunities for them, their creativity can take them anywhere: as evidenced by Jessie Buckley, it could even take them to Hollywood.

Today, as we celebrate Jessie Buckley's incredible achievement, let it remind us of something important: we must invest in the arts locally and in the potential of our next generation here at home. From west Belfast's Anthony Boyle and Lola Petticrew to the South's Paul Mescal and Cillian Murphy, we have a hub of talent on this island, North and South. That is why local investment is so important. The closure of the Riverside Theatre in my constituency was so heartbreaking for so many of us. Who knows what lies ahead? The next Oscar winner may well be growing up today in Coleraine or somewhere else in Northern Ireland. While we celebrate Jessie Buckley, who is one of us, we also celebrate the pride that we feel in being Irish, the Irish identity, Irish talent and, of course, the importance of celebrating and investing in the local arts.

Mrs Cameron: Today, I highlight the human cost of the ongoing barristers' strike in Northern Ireland and its impact on victims' families across the country. Recently, I met a constituent and her only son, whose husband and father tragically lost his life in a workplace incident several years ago. Since the horror of that day, that family has been waiting patiently for justice through the courts. The trial in their case is scheduled for later this year, but, like many others, the case faces a real possibility of further delay due to the current industrial action by the legal profession. The court process has already been long and deeply painful for that family. They have attended court on numerous occasions, only to have hearings postponed. Each delay reopens wounds and prolongs the uncertainty that they must live with every day. Behind every case number is a real family; people who are trying to rebuild their lives after unimaginable loss. For them, justice delayed is not simply a procedural matter; it has a profound emotional and psychological impact.

I recognise that the issues surrounding legal aid and the sustainability of the criminal justice system are complex. However, it is vital that a resolution is found as quickly as possible, so that victims and their families are not left in limbo and their pain is not unnecessarily prolonged. I acknowledge that a limited number of cases have proceeded under derogation arrangements during the industrial action. That is, of course, welcome and has ensured that some matters have been able to move forward. However, many other cases, including those involving grieving families, still face uncertainty and the real prospect of further and harmful delay. Therefore, I urge the Justice Minister to continue working urgently with the Bar Council and all relevant parties to resolve the dispute and restore normal court proceedings. Families who have already endured so much should not have to wait any longer for the justice that they deserve.

I have written to the Justice Minister to request a cross-party meeting with the family in the particular case. The family is anxious to hear whether the meeting will be granted.

Ms Sugden: I want to acknowledge my absence from the Chamber over the past number of months. I also thank colleagues from across the House and the many members of the public who contacted me privately during that time. The kindness shown to me is genuinely appreciated. My absence began with what, I thought, was a migraine; thankfully, it also ended there. There were scans, three lumbar punctures, a suspected stroke and several weeks of uncertainty. The care that I received at Causeway Hospital was excellent. The staff responded quickly and professionally when they believed that I was experiencing a medical emergency, and for that I am truly grateful.

Being in the system that we often debate and advocate for gives you a different perspective. While I was there, I spent many hours in A&E, where I saw older people waiting far too long, many of them on their own, and staff working at full stretch. On the stroke ward, I saw real dedication from the staff but also the pressure that they are under every day. It is a difficult experience to find yourself at 39 years old and as the mother of a two-year-old in a ward that we normally associate with those who are later in life. Yet, the consultants were clear that younger patients there are not unusual. Increasingly, they see people whose bodies have been under sustained pressure for long periods due to trauma, stress and strain, leaving nervous systems operating in fight or flight mode for far too long.

My experience of the uncertainty and the investigations and what followed made me reflect on something that we do not talk enough about in this place, which is trauma. We often treat trauma as something that sits in the past, but the body keeps a score. Experiences can be carried physically long after the moment has passed.

Medically, that can mean a dysregulated nervous system, where the sympathetic system that prepares us for threat stays switched on and the parasympathetic system that is meant to calm and regulate the body struggles to restore balance.

We are a post-conflict society, where many people have carried trauma for decades. For some, it comes from the Troubles, and, for others, it comes from domestic violence, childhood adversity, poverty and the constant pressures of caring responsibilities. However, if we are serious about prevention and about easing pressure on our health service, trauma-informed approaches must be properly embedded in our system and across wider public services. At present, much of our response focuses on cognitive therapies such as CBT, and those absolutely have their place. However, trauma is not only something that people think about that is in their heads. It is something that the body experiences. If the nervous system itself has become dysregulated, part of the pathway must focus on helping people return to a regulated state, not simply asking them to think differently about what has happened to them. That is an area where I believe that our services in Northern Ireland still have work to do.

My time away has given me a clearer sense of how fragile health can be, a deeper respect for our healthcare staff and a greater compassion for those who are living with trauma without the support that they need. I am glad to be back, and I intend to continue pressing for a system that understands trauma not as an afterthought but as part of the foundation of better care.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Harry, you have two minutes.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I want to take a moment to reflect on a deeply meaningful event, which was held in the Great Hall, here, at Stormont, the Forget-me-not Mother's Day labyrinth, created to honour families affected by baby and child loss.

The labyrinth is a gentle symbolic walking practice used across the world in civic and sacred spaces. On Saturday, this place became a place of reflection, remembrance and connection for mothers and grandmothers whose hearts carry an unimaginable weight. It offered dignity, visibility and compassion to those who often grieve in silence, and it reminded all of us of the importance of the sensitive support pathways and compassionate policy for those navigating such profound loss. What made that event especially moving was the tenderness that surrounded it. The scarf labyrinth, formed from scarves donated by people across our community, held the space together with extraordinary care. Every scarf represented love, solidarity and the simple truth that no family should walk this path alone.

I want to acknowledge the women and families who walked the labyrinth on Saturday. Their courage, their gentleness and their love for their children and grandchildren was unmistakable. In a world that can feel divided and unsettled, what we witnessed was the opposite: compassion, patience and a deep humanity that speaks louder than any headline.

I also want to express sincere gratitude to the organisers — the labyrinth collective, to the midwives and healthcare professionals who support bereaved families, and to the security and events teams here at Stormont, whose kindness and care were exemplary.

The event was not a therapeutic intervention, nor did it claim to be.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Harry.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, you have one minute.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Last week, the public here in Northern Ireland got a further glimpse into why Cantor Fitzgerald pulled out of plans to locate an office here in Belfast. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act to Sam McBride show that the major American financial services firm had agreed to create 300 well-paid jobs. That project had reached the stage of a signed letter of offer from Invest NI. Discussions were already under way about the timing of the public announcement, and then something happened. On 11 March last year, the Economy Minister travelled to New York and met the leadership of the company in what officials themselves described as a critical meeting. After that meeting, the deal collapsed, and 300 jobs vanished. We are well used to the toxic nature of Sinn Féin being exposed locally. We now know that its toxic nature —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Gaston: — is harming Northern Ireland —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Gaston: — here and on a global scale.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Take your seat. Thank you, Timothy.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly may sit beyond 7.00 pm this evening, if required.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill, which is a Bill to make provision as to the persons who may solemnise marriage; to make provision about the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership; and for connected purposes.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit for the debate. Given the nature of the Bill, some Members may want to draw on their knowledge of cases that they consider resulted in unduly lenient sentences or cases where there is, or was, an alleged failure to provide information on a victim's remains. Where the Assembly is considering legislation, Members may refer to such matters in good faith, and, indeed, in the public interest. I will not need to remind Members of the sensitivity of these matters among the families of victims, but I do remind Members to respect the distinct roles of the court and of the Assembly when making their contributions. Hopefully, that is clear.

I call on the Minister of Justice to open the debate on the Bill.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to bring the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill to the Assembly. On my reappointment as Minister of Justice in February 2024, I agreed my legislative programme with the aim of continuing the transformation of our justice system into a better one for all. The Bill is another step forward in that reform programme, demonstrating my commitment to improving the justice system, and, in particular, the transparency, understanding and effectiveness of sentencing through this bespoke piece of legislation.

Sentencing is one of the most complex aspects of the duties of courts. Court sentencing powers include a wide range of disposals from the lowest levels of non-custodial sentences up to the most severe custodial sentence: a life sentence. It is often the subject of media comment, but sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. The role of government is restricted to providing a legislative framework within which the courts can deliver justice as befits the individual circumstances of each case.

The Bill aims to strengthen and improve the existing framework. It consists of 51 clauses over eight Parts, and has six key objectives: first, to set in statute the basis on which sentencing decisions across the board, and in particular types of cases, are made; secondly, to make better use of community sentencing principles; thirdly, to simplify and extend current arrangements of the review of unduly lenient sentences; fourthly, to introduce Charlotte's law; fifthly, to require the courts to specify and specifically recognise certain characteristics of victims in sentencing; and, last but not least, to increase the maximum penalties for a range of road traffic offences where death or serious injury occurs.

It is right that the courts apply their discretion when charged with the complicated task of deciding the appropriate sentence to impose an any offender. Only the court that has heard every detail of the case can be in a sufficiently informed position to make those decisions, some of which have far-reaching effects, not only on the offender but on the wider family circle, on victims and on others in our society. However, there must be some parameters around those decisions. At present, statute provides the maximum sentence for every offence, and it is understood that certain other matters must be considered, but it is not always clear to the public what the court aims to do.

Part 1 of the Bill places in legislation for the first time in Northern Ireland a clear statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing and requires the courts to have regard to those when dealing with adult offenders. It further requires the courts to follow any sentencing guidance that is relevant to the offender's case and to give reason in cases where guidance is not followed. These provisions are designed to help those involved in criminal proceedings and the public more generally to understand the multilayered aims of sentencing and matters that the courts must take into consideration when carrying out what is a complex task.

Part 2 of the Bill contains provisions to allow the courts to include additional requirements when imposing a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence that is not put into effect unless the offender commits further offences within the period specified by the courts. It therefore acts as a deterrent from further offending but does little to address the root cause of that offending behaviour. This part of the Bill seeks to draw on well-documented evidence that those who are subject to community sentences tend to have a lower reoffending rate than those who receive short custodial sentences. In other words, there is a definite place for suspended sentences, but we can make them more effective in ensuring both that an offender is accountable for their offending and that they do not reoffend. The provisions aim to strengthen the suspended sentence to allow the courts, in suitable cases, to impose community requirements similar to those currently available under the community sentence framework along with a suspended sentence. The requirements may include unpaid work, curfew or electronic monitoring, or requirements relating to the offender's residence, activities or treatment. Building on current community sentence legislation, the provisions also set out the responsibilities of the probation officer assigned to ensure that the offender complies with the order and makes provision for the consequences of a breach of an order.

As Members are aware, life sentences include a period known as the tariff, set by the court, that the offender must spend in prison before they are eligible to have their case considered by the Parole Commissioners for release on licence. Once released, the licence remains in force for the rest of their life. If a person breaches the conditions of their licence, they may be returned to prison for a further period. While a life sentence is available as the maximum sentence for a number of the most serious offences, murder is the only offence where it is mandatory. Part 3 of the Bill makes provision in relation to the setting of tariffs when the court imposes a mandatory life sentence. To arrive at the final tariff, the court selects the appropriate starting point and then adjusts this up or down to take account of aggravating or mitigating features of the case. Starting points are currently found in case law, with guidance issued by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal to help the courts in their choice of starting point and the impact of some of the more common aggravating and mitigating factors. It can be difficult to identify the appropriate and most up-to-date case law, meaning that that approach lacks a certain transparency, and it is at odds with the position in England and Wales, where these are found in statute. Including starting points in the Bill will help address this issue as well as provide more clarity to the public on how tariffs in life sentence cases are calculated.

Where certain specified sentences are considered to be unduly lenient, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland already has the power to refer them to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. Part 4 of the Bill simplifies and extends those arrangements for Northern Ireland so that all sentences imposed in the Crown Court will be capable of being referred to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration if they are considered to be unduly lenient. The current provisions are found in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That UK-wide legislation includes a number of modifications in relation to its application to Northern Ireland. The provision allows for sentences of a description specified in departmental orders to be referable and has resulted in a patchwork approach with no clear rationale as to why some sentences are included and others are not. The Bill largely re-enacts those provisions, creating Northern Ireland's own statutory regime for the first time, but with the significant change that it allows any sentence passed by the Crown Court to be referred.

That will take the guesswork out of knowing which sentences may be referable, bringing much-needed clarity and consistency to the scheme and enhancing public understanding of it.

Part 5 creates what we have referred to as "Charlotte's law". Members will be aware of the campaign that was so bravely taken forward by the family of Charlotte Murray, with strong support from Lisa Dorrian's family. Those families are keenly watching the Bill’s progress, and Lisa's father and her sister, Joanne, are present in the Public Gallery today. I thank both families for their invaluable contribution to the development of the provisions in the Bill before us. Charlotte was murdered by her former partner, John Miller, who was given a life sentence in 2021 for taking her life, despite protesting his innocence, and Charlotte's remains have never been found. Lisa's disappearance now spans 21 years. The pain endured by those two families is unimaginable. To have nowhere to go to grieve and nowhere to pay your respects is a cruelty that is hard for any of us to imagine. We want to deal with that in the legislation by encouraging people, at the earliest point in their journey through the justice system, to give up such crucial information to the families and the courts.

The Bill makes groundbreaking provision aimed at encouraging disclosures about the location of a victim's remains. It introduces a requirement for the court to increase the custodial sentence or life sentence tariff imposed to take account of the failure to disclose, and it makes provisions for proportionate reductions in the sentence should a disclosure be made while the killer is in prison. Those provisions are carefully designed to apply with some modification to cases where a sentence has already been imposed, thus importantly capturing Charlotte Murray's family’s situation. In addition, Part 5 includes provisions similar to Helen's law, which requires the Parole Commissioners to take non-disclosure into account if a prisoner still has not given up that information by the time they can be considered for release on licence. I remain committed to giving hope to families who find themselves in those appalling circumstances and trust that the provisions will make a meaningful difference to them.

Part 6 deals with groups whose needs justify particular protection. First, it delivers on the most impactful recommendations from Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime legislation and introduces a new model for tackling hate crime in Northern Ireland. It creates a statutory aggravator model for offences aggravated by hostility where the victim belongs to a racial, religious, sexual orientation or disability group. The aggravated offence model will provide a system-wide response to the criminalisation of the hate element of crimes. The provisions also allow the Department to add further kinds of hostility or details to the list by subordinate legislation. The impact of hate can be long-lasting and far-reaching, going beyond the victim's personal experience and increasing fear in the wider community. In creating the legislation, we are recognising the impact on victims and reassuring communities that crimes against them are being taken seriously.

Continuing with the theme of those who deserve special protection, Part 6 goes on to create an aggravator where the victim is a vulnerable person. Both for hate crime and vulnerable victims, the Bill requires the court to treat the offence more seriously, to state that the offence is so aggravated, to record the conviction in such a way that shows the aggravation and, in imposing the sentence, to explain how the aggravation has affected the sentence imposed.

A third group of victims is also catered for. Over the course of finalising the proposals for the Bill, a growing and worrying trend of unprovoked attacks demonstrated that many workers who provide services to the public can be described as being on the front line. In addition to members of the emergency services and the health and social care service, victims included retail workers, hospitality workers, public transport workers, service providers and lawyers, and the list goes on. Whilst all of those attacks can currently be dealt with under the laws pertaining to existing assault offences, it is considered that something more is needed for workers whose job means that they have to deal routinely with members of the public. The Bill, therefore, creates a new offence of assault on a worker who is providing a service to the public, delivering a public service or performing a public duty. The new offence recognises those workers and introduces a higher maximum sentence than that available for the existing common assault offence. It provides much more scope for the judiciary to take into account the factors of individual cases and, importantly, is not restricted to the public sector.

Finally, Part 6 creates further aggravators that may be specified in a case in which a person who is a public worker is the subject of any of a range of more serious offences. It is intended that those provisions will send the strong message that no one should have to put up with being attacked simply for doing their job.

Part 7 is the final substantive part of the Bill. It makes changes to current maximum penalties and minimum disqualification periods for a range of driving offences in which death or serious injury occurs. The changes have been campaigned for by courageous families who have lost loved ones on our roads. At this juncture, I pay tribute in particular to the families of Enda Dolan, Martin Gallagher and Lesley-Ann McCarragher, all of whom contributed to the development of the provisions, in the hope that they will prevent other families from having to endure the same heartbreak as them.

Mr and Mrs Dolan in particular have worked with us every step of the way, and they are, I believe, in the Public Gallery today. It is particularly poignant for them that we are discussing this Bill today, given that Friday of this week, 20 March, would have been Enda's thirtieth birthday. Enda was just 18 when he was killed, so the Bill has been a long time coming.

I have been struck by the patient and measured way in which those families have maintained their campaigns, which address not only the sentencing of those convicted of offences that caused the death of their children but the wider lived experience of following prosecutions from beginning to end. They have echoed comments that I hear all too often, highlighting the process-driven nature of our criminal justice system, which comes up short of the mark in demonstrating compassion and respect for victims and those who are left to pick up the pieces after such devastating offences have been committed.

Ms Sugden mentioned trauma earlier. I have made clear my belief that our justice system must be more trauma-informed from start to finish. I again place on record my intention to continue to work to improve the experience of victims and bereaved families who, through no fault of their own, find themselves thrust into that unwanted and unfamiliar world. Funded by my Department, Victim Support NI provides advice and support to families of victims as they go through the criminal justice system.

The changes made by Part 7 will see an increase from 14 years to 20 years in the maximum sentence available for the offences of causing death or serious injury through dangerous driving or careless driving with drink or drugs. That unique new maximum penalty befits the horror of such offences, and it cannot come into effect too soon.

Part 7 also provides for a possible life sentence where a driver has a previous conviction for one of those offences, and it increases the minimum disqualification period for the offences from two years to four years. For repeat offenders, it increases it from three years to six years.

Finally, Part 7 addresses an issue that has lain unresolved for many years through the provision that a disqualified driver will serve their disqualification period after they are released from prison. That will give real meaning to disqualifications in those horrendous cases, keeping such drivers off our roads for longer periods than is the case at present.

The proposed new provisions are proportionate in the context of the law and also when we consider how heinous those crimes are, cruelly robbing the victims of their future and their families of a son or a daughter.

That concludes my remarks on the substantive policy content of the Bill as introduced. As Members have heard, the Bill includes some novel and unique provisions. I do not believe, and I have never believed, that "novel" and "unique" should be seen as weaknesses. To the contrary, they are the purpose of devolution. Importantly, the Bill introduces significant changes that will make a positive difference to the people whom we represent, particularly victims of crime, and will improve confidence in the criminal justice system and increase the transparency and effectiveness of sentencing.

I look forward to working with the Committee for Justice and my Assembly colleagues to ensure that the Bill's provisions are enacted within this mandate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Second Stage debate on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. There is little point in my repeating what the Minister said while outlining the content of the Bill. It will be referred to the Committee should it pass Second Stage, and that is when the Committee's scrutiny will start in earnest. However, the Committee undertook some pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, engaging with officials before and after its introduction on 3 March 2026.

The Committee was first advised of the prospect of the Bill at the start of the mandate, with the indication that it would be the second of three large pieces of legislation coming from the Department. During oral evidence to the Committee on 25 April 2024, the Minister also outlined her wish to introduce a sentencing reform Bill in the spring of 2025. On 26 September 2024, departmental officials indicated that the Bill was being worked on, that it was likely to be complex and that it would require careful scrutiny. The Minister subsequently provided some further clarity on intended policy areas to be included in the Bill in March 2025 when she gave evidence to the Justice Committee.

The Committee received the first comprehensive pre-legislative briefing on the Bill from officials at its meeting of 27 November 2025. The written paper from the Department provided background on the development of the Bill, including the public consultation that was carried out in late 2019 and early 2020, which built on a previous review of sentencing back in 2016 when Claire Sugden was Justice Minister. During the oral session, officials outlined that the Bill would cover the principles and purposes of sentencing; introduce new offences of assault on public workers; deal with unduly lenient sentencing in the Crown Court; increase penalties for dangerous driving offences; make provisions for mandatory life sentencing; introduce Charlotte's law for failing to disclose the location of victims' remains; and bring in new hate crime aggravators. Officials said that, although they had hoped to introduce the Bill before the end of the calendar year, drafting had been complex and taken longer than expected. Committee members took the chance to ask some initial questions about issues such as the thresholds for unduly lenient sentencing, the calculations used for additional sentencing tariffs for Charlotte's law and the exploration of statutory aggravators for hate crime.

Following that initial briefing, the Committee sought clarification from the Department on the specific reasons for the delay in introducing the Bill. We also sought more information on how the protected groups in the section on hate crime aggravators had been selected and further information on the prevalence and use of victim statements in court. The latter issue was raised with the Committee by the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime during her evidence on the Justice Bill. The Department's response provided detailed information on hate crime aggravators, including evidence on the consideration given to sectarianism, age and gender as statutory aggravators, and the work carried out in other jurisdictions and how that helped to form the evidence base for the measures. The response also advised that the delay in the intended time frame for introduction was primarily due to technical and legal complexities that were encountered during the drafting stage. It also stated that the proposed content of the Bill covered a range of important sentencing issues that were significant in terms of both the number of issues being addressed and their complexity. Sentencing was one of the most complicated areas of law, with a complex mixture of legislation and practice to be taken into consideration when making any changes.

The Committee received an introductory briefing on the detail of the Bill on 5 March, two days after its introduction. I thank the officials for that briefing, which, I know, members found very helpful. Officials outlined some changes to the Bill that were proposed back in November and shared, as a draft, with the Committee. Those changes included the removal of a power for the Court of Appeal to issue its own guidance, which, officials indicated, required further development and discussion with the judiciary. Officials also outlined the fact that the Bill no longer included transgender identity as a protected group in the hate crime provisions, as that could not secure Executive approval. During the session, members asked further questions, and we also sought follow-up information on the deterrence factor of longer sentencing and the potential impact of longer sentencing on the prison system. That is particularly important as, as members heard, the prison population is at an all-time high, meaning that the Prison Service is under pressure. We are keen, therefore, to see the analysis that has been done on the Bill's possible impact on the Prison Service and whether it will potentially add to those existing unprecedented pressures.

On the face of it, the Bill may be narrower in focus than the Justice Bill and the proposed departmental amendments. However, as the Department has pointed out, it deals with complex and technical matters.

There is no doubt that some of the matters covered by the Bill are sensitive and will have a real-life impact on victims and their families; indeed, several measures in the Bill have been informed and championed by victims and their families.

I have no doubt that the Bill will be of great interest to the public and to stakeholders. In fact, the Committee has already received several approaches from individuals, organisations and MLAs about what is in the Bill and, importantly, what is not in it. We will consider those matters in our scrutiny.

It is important that the Committee makes sure that the Bill delivers on its aims and helps to improve the operation and transparency of the justice system. The Committee will do all that it can to work with the Department and the Minister to make sure that that happens and that this crucial, detailed and complex legislation is fit for purpose. It will probably come as no surprise to Members when I say that I relish the scrutiny of primary legislation. I, along with my colleagues on the Justice Committee, look forward to considering the Bill in detail at Committee Stage, subject, to its successfully passing Second Stage today.

I will make a number of points in my capacity as an individual MLA and DUP spokesperson. There is no doubt that this is a really important Bill that has been a long time coming. We have looked at reviews of sentencing for many years, going back to Claire Sugden's time as Justice Minister. I was Chair of the Justice Committee at that time as well, and I worked well with Ms Sugden on these important issues.

It is fair to say that the Bill is really technical. It grapples with some serious issues that have affected victims and their families up until now. There is real frustration about the cogs not only of justice but of legislation turning slowly. The Bill must be welcomed, because we can now see the detail of the Minister's proposals. I give my commitment to the Minister that I will do all in my power as a DUP MLA chairing the Justice Committee to work with her and her Department to make sure that the legislation is the best that it can be and that it is wholesome.

It alarms me a wee bit that the Department has moved on another review of sentencing that will run alongside the legislative journey of the Bill. Whilst it is always important to review sentencing, I wonder whether there is a missed opportunity to do some of the work of that review and to have that in the Bill.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. He is always generous with his time, and I appreciate it.

The Member will appreciate that the gestation of the Bill has been 10 years. It has taken a long time to get here. That is partly because the Assembly was not here for half of those 10 years. It is also because it takes a long time to develop policy. We are doing the review alongside this, if you like, because we recognise that the Bill will not cover every issue. We want to ensure that we do not take missteps in trying to rush to legislate when we have not done the policy development. Therefore, I reassure the Member that, if, during the passage of the Bill, issues emerge that need to be addressed, we will be more than happy to look at them as part of that review and try to take them forward in the next mandate.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention; it was very helpful. One issue that comes to mind — there has already been interest in this from MLAs — is that of Harper's law. Whilst the Minister is right to talk about the gestation of the Bill and how long it has taken to get to this point, Harper's law has been about for a good number of years. Having met departmental officials, I know that they have been grappling with that issue for a number of years. That is just one example: a lot of MLAs ask me why Harper's law is not in the Bill but is in the sentencing review that the Department is conducting. That is just one important issue that springs to mind.

I will move through the Bill. Part 2 is on suspended sentences. It is important that we do justice in a cleverer way. We should have smarter justice, and we should strive for smarter justice at every opportunity that we get. I understand the point about short custodial sentences: when people are thrown into prison for short periods, you do not really get time to rehabilitate them. They serve their time in there, and then they get pushed out into society again. That can sometimes be a brutal instrument, albeit it is justice. We should consider how that works and operates in practice and whether we best serve the public through short custodial sentences.

Part 2 refers to suspended sentence orders. For serious offences, it states:

A court can give a suspended sentence order if the sentence is between five and seven years. A custodial sentence of between five and seven years can be given for really serious crimes. A person could be put in prison for five years or seven years for really serious issues, so there will be a concern that people may receive a suspended sentence order who should really spend time in prison not only for their rehabilitation but for the safety of the victims and potential victims. It is really important that that be looked at and scrutinised appropriately.

We have seen that unduly lenient sentences have been given in GB for some of the most horrific sexual crimes and even technology-assisted child sexual abuse offences. We should consider who can avail themselves of a suspended sentence order, the availability of those orders and whether there are some crimes that such an order just is not compatible with. We need to be careful there.

Part 2 also mentions pre-sentencing reports. Such reports will be really important in informing the court of issues before sentencing takes place. There are times when addiction, not least gambling addiction, plays its part in crime. The all-party group (APG) on reducing harm related to gambling is exercised on the issue, and I believe that the chair of that APG will speak later. It is important that things are included in a pre-sentencing report that not only assist the court in coming to a conclusion about the sentencing that it should hand down to someone but inform it about how someone can be rehabilitated. Surely a massive part of why we have justice in the first place is to ensure that we do not create further victims by not rehabilitating those who could and should be rehabilitated. There are some really big issues in Part 2.

We go from suspended sentences to mandatory life sentences in Part 3. That will be an important piece too.

Part 4 deals with unduly lenient sentencing. Again, that is a massive issue. Politicians sometimes step into that area when they believe that an unduly lenient sentence has been given in a case. There has been and continues to be a process there. One of the fundamental questions that come up about Part 4 — my Justice Committee colleague Doug Beattie has raised it — is why it applies only to Crown Court cases. Why does it not apply to Magistrates' Court cases? There can be an array of issues with regard to unduly lenient sentences, but, surely, if there is an issue at the Crown Court, that will be replicated at the Magistrates' Court. Whilst it may be a process issue, there is a problem there. A question should be posed about unduly lenient sentencing in the Magistrates' Court, which deals with some really important, serious crimes. We should pose that question.

Part 5 is:

That goes to the heart of the cases involving victims such as Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian and their families and, of course, Charlotte's law and Helen's law. There has been a lot of sympathy, even in the House, for the way in which victims have been treated over the years, so it is good to see those measures in the Bill. We look forward to scrutinising them to ensure that they are the best that they can be, that victims are supported and that families can get closure on a lot of those issues.

There are some groundbreaking and new issues in Part 6, which relates to hate crime. I am glad to say that the Minister is now going for an aggravator model as opposed to potential new crimes around hate crime. I welcome that, because I am one of the MLAs who have been nervous and worried about hate crime legislation and how it is playing out in GB with regard to some of the sentencing that is being imposed, especially for incidents in the world of social media. It is an important area. Of course, no one should be attacked because of who they are, what community they belong to, what religious group they are from or how they live their life. No one should be attacked or made a victim because of any of those factors. We should look at that, but I am glad that the Minister has gone down the road of an aggravator. That makes one fundamental difference: it will be the court, not the police officer who first arrests or questions someone, that will decide the aggravation. For me, that brings a bit of comfort and confidence on Part 6.

One thing that worries me relates to the recording or non-recording of non-crime hate incidents. That is a massive issue, because no crime may have been committed, but people will have their details taken, and, somewhere in the future, details of some aspect of that person's life can be disclosed. That could have a detrimental impact on their life. If I can get some certainty regarding the recording of non-crime hate incidents —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the engagement on this. The recording of hate incidents falls to the PSNI, but it would not affect only hate incidents; it would affect all reports of potential incidents that have taken place. Whilst I understand the point that the Member makes about how long people's data can be held — it is well made, but it is something that we are dealing with separately — there is a fundamental issue relating to the fact that some people will behave in ways that mean that they cannot be prosecuted due to a lack of evidence or that do not meet the criminal threshold but can often be an indicator of other behaviours. Serial sex offenders, for example, may often start with low-level indicators. If those are recorded and held, a pattern may emerge, and losing that information because it falls short of the criminal would be dangerous. There is a balance to be struck, and I will be interested to engage with the Committee and the Member on that as we go through the process.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her engagement and the clarification. She is right: there will be cases where people are not convicted or proven guilty. There are, therefore, times when it is right for the police to record incidents, but it should also be the case that we are careful about how that information is disclosed, because it may be the case that no crime is committed and the person is completely innocent but, because there is a recording somewhere, it could be disclosed. That could cause severe detriment to someone who has not committed a crime. That is an area that we will be able to look at and see where we go.

Another issue that strikes me as interesting is the assault on public workers. It is a novel and good idea, but I worry, because it is put in the Bill as "assaults on public workers", which basically includes everyone who performs a public duty, including retail workers and everyone who produces something for the public. It is right that people get protection, but we have already had aggravators and actual crimes around assaults on people who work in blue-light services, such as police officers and firefighters.

Of course, I had the pleasure of bringing in a law to bring ambulance workers up to that level; that was in 2016, if my memory serves me right. I brought an amendment to the Justice Bill — I think that it was during David Ford's time as Minister — to bring ambulance workers up to the same level as firefighters and police officers when it comes to aggravated assault.

I worry that those blue-light service workers, who not only perform a duty and a service to the public but are lifesavers, will now be at the same level as every public worker. Whilst every public worker needs to be protected in law, there is a difference when that public service can save a life. There is logic in elevating offences for assaults on blue-light service workers, because, if you knock that worker out of commission and out of operation, that could be detrimental to the next victim. If a firefighter, police officer or ambulance worker ends up in A&E and is out of service and unable to work, it may, for example, be the case that that police officer should have been at the scene of a crime when another victim was created. There is potential to ensure that those blue-light service workers are elevated above all other public workers because of the impact of an assault on those workers.

Those three job titles are included in the Bill, but we could roll that out further. I toyed with the idea of bringing a private Member's Bill to deal with assaults on A&E staff, because that is the same logic. This could get wider, and we should maybe explore that and look at including public service workers where there is a real impact on life. We would be justified in elevating such jobs when it comes to assaults on public workers. I am sure that that will not be easy. Social workers have the same issue, because they go into people's homes and could be assaulted.

Mrs Long: And probation officers.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for reminding me about probation officers. There will be many more, but it is worth looking at that and seeing whether there can be an elevation. I understand that the Minister is repealing the blue-light assault offences; she can correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, she will be repealing one of the laws that I brought in. However, we are not precious about that sort of thing. We want to see proper law, and we want to see the law working to protect the people who protect us.

I have a lot of family members who work in retail, some of whom have been assaulted in the shop, but I think that they understand that they are not performing a life-changing service. They are selling food and good stuff, but they are not performing such a service. Therefore, whilst it is right to protect retail staff and service workers, we have to look at the elevation of people who save us, care for us, try to save our lives and keep us from harm. There is a lot of exploration work to be done there.

Part 7 is about road traffic offences, and I am intrigued with that Part because a number of MLAs have come to me about potential amendments related to road traffic issues. I wonder whether Part 7 opens up scope for such work. I will be working with the Bill Office, probably in the next couple of weeks, to explore ways in which we can maybe bring something in that provides a service to people who have suffered. Of course, Part 7 is partly to do with Enda Dolan, who was aged 18 when he was struck by a van and died. It is a really sensitive issue, and it is really important that we deal with it. There are other victims out there with similar, but not identical, stories to tell, and they could maybe be covered in Part 7. There could be exploration of what can be done in that regard.

As I said, I am intrigued by the Bill. I look forward to scrutinising it with my colleagues on the Justice Committee. The Committee has assembled a very good team. We are very capable of scrutinising the Bill, of assisting the Minister and the Department with it and of advising them where clauses might be bettered or where new clauses might be added. I look forward to scrutinising the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill in the weeks ahead.

Mr McGlone: The SDLP welcomes the Second Stage debate on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. As has already been set out, its provisions are important and overdue. The review of issues to do with sentencing policy that the Bill covers was announced 10 years ago, and proposals for a sentencing guidelines mechanism were announced four years before that, in 2012. As always, it is important to take the right approach to addressing the issues. The time, however, that has been taken to introduce a new legislative framework and a new and effective sentencing guidelines mechanism cannot be considered to be helpful for securing public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is for the parties responsible for causing the delays in the legislation's introduction to reflect on the impact of their decisions. We in the SDLP have proposed modest reforms that would prevent a repeat of such lengthy delays with important legislation in future by allowing the Assembly to continue to sit and to scrutinise drafted legislation in circumstances in which a single party chooses to collapse the Executive.

The Bill is important. It includes a number of provisions on the exercising of the court's discretion when sentencing, the availability and effect of suspended sentence orders, the determination of tariffs where a court is required to pass a life sentence and a review of certain sentences. It also increases penalties and disqualification periods for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving. As the Minister and the Committee Chair have already said, we have the parents of Enda Dolan in the Public Gallery. Enda was an 18-year-old student from Killyclogher in County Tyrone who had been studying architecture at Queen's University. On 15 October 2014, on the Malone Road in south Belfast, a van driver who had taken drink and drugs mounted the pavement and struck Enda. Enda was thrown on to the roof of the van. The driver continued driving before eventually stopping. Enda died from his injuries at the scene. The driver pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and related offences. He was initially sentenced to seven years in prison, with the sentence later being increased on appeal. Enda's family launched the Run for Enda campaign and have, for many years, advocated for tougher sentences for drink- and drug-driving that causes death. As I said, Peter and Niamh, Enda's parents, are with us in the Public Gallery. They will no doubt be keeping a close watch on what happens here today and, indeed, at the Justice Committee as it scrutinises the Bill to ensure, as the Chair committed to earlier, that there is effective delivery for those people who have already suffered loss, hurt and injury as a consequence of what has happened to them in their lives.

The Bill's provisions are all important and very welcome changes. In particular, I welcome the introduction of provisions for Charlotte's law. We acknowledge the Murray and Dorrian families at this time. We are also reminded of the pain suffered and injustice felt by the families of those who were disappeared by the Provisional IRA, some of whom have waited over 40 years for the return of the body of their loved one. In November 2021, the Justice Minister announced proposals on Charlotte's law in the Chamber, but they have been delayed by the actions of the parties who sit in the Executive Office. I hope that there are not similar delays in introducing the legislation that is required for Caoimhe's law. Given the raised expectations of victims' families, it is important that the preparations be made and the resources put in place so that the Bill's provisions can deliver real impact from day 1.

My party also welcomes the changes to the procedure for addressing unduly lenient sentences. Simplifying and expanding the arrangements is a step in the right direction to improving public confidence in the justice system. It is, however, outcomes that will ultimately play a greater role in improving public confidence, and they will need to be monitored very carefully. The Bill also creates an offence of assaulting a public worker, extending the existing offences of assault on police, fire and rescue officers and ambulance workers to cover all public workers who:

or "perform a public duty". I think that I was one of the members who raised at Committee the issue of what that definition might be. The Chair already mentioned that issue. There is some concern that the widespread extension of that offence could undermine the original intention to protect emergency workers, who are already covered.

I also highlight our concern about the provisions for a statutory aggravator model for hate crime. It was supposed to reflect the recommendations from Judge Marrinan's review of the way in which the justice system deals with criminal conduct motivated by hate, malice, ill will or prejudice. While the proposed mechanism itself may allow for that, we are concerned about the Minister's apparent minimalist approach to protected groups or characteristics. We do not believe that it reflects the ambition or the progressive nature of Judge Marrinan's recommendations.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mrs Long: I welcome the support for the aggravator model that we have heard so far in the debate. To be clear, it is not about being restrictive. We consulted on the categories in the Bill at the moment. There is also a clause that allows us to add by regulation additional categories, given that a phase 2 consultation will look at other protected characteristics: for example, defining age, sectarianism and so on are more complex issues that were not covered in the phase 1 consultation, but they can be added without further primary legislation after the Bill is passed.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for that. Equally, I trust and hope that the level of commitment to engaging with and delivering such legislation will not be hindered by anything in or outwith the Chamber, as has been the case up to now.

I am sure that, within the past hour, the Minister and other Members received the email from the Commissioner for Older People expressing disappointment that crimes against older people have not been included in the Bill. Hopefully, that will be a matter for consideration by the Minister when it comes to the secondary legislation that she suggested.

We had been told that the Bill was about introducing the statutory aggravator model, starting with the four existing protected groups, and that the second provision was there to introduce the additional protected groups at a later date. One of the departmental officials who attended the Justice Committee meeting on 27 November last year stated:

That is consistent with what the Minister outlined. However, we were recently informed that the Minister sought agreement from her Executive colleagues in November 2025 to introduce and include transgender identity as a protected group in the Bill. It was the Executive's inability to agree to that measure that meant that transgender identity as a protected group was removed from the Bill. That lack of consistency in the approach to protected groups was compounded by the argument from the departmental official at the Justice Committee in November 2025 that officials had already looked at sex as a potential protected group but decided that incidents where:

That is a direct quote from one of the officials who attended that meeting and presented evidence. Perhaps they were not looking carefully enough, or perhaps they need to widen the scope of what they are looking at or to liaise more with the police and community and voluntary groups to establish the extent and nature of that particular crime, as I suggest that it is.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mrs Long: I think that the Member is conflating two slightly different issues. One is about gender or sex, as in male or female, and it was about the number of misogyny hate crimes that were picked up. The other is to do with transgender hate crimes, which, as we know, have increased.

The letter that I sent to colleagues in the Executive set out my reasons for wishing to include transgender as one of the protected characteristics. We have seen a massive increase in violence and hate crimes against those who are transgender.

The issue is how much of the crime that we see happening on our streets could genuinely be said to be driven by misogyny. That is a bigger challenge, but it is something that will form part of the phase 2 consultation. In Scotland, the Government took the option of bringing forward a separate misogyny Bill because they did not believe that it fitted in the hate crime model.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for elaborating on that. Perhaps, in her winding-up comments, the Minister will indicate whether she will take the Scottish route, which she outlined, and introduce a separate misogyny Bill. That would be very helpful. Nevertheless, according to one official, sex is one of the groups that could be added at a later stage. The Minister has clarified her position on that. I suggest that, rather than follow the English and Welsh model, we align our hate crime legislation now with that on the rest of the island of Ireland and with the intention in Scotland to include characteristics of sex or gender in the protected groups.

The Bill includes important provisions that can help to secure public confidence in the criminal justice system. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, those issues can be resolved. I intend, as, I am sure, will other Members, to engage positively with the Department and the Minister on that and make sure that, in this mandate, we see good, effective legislation that helps to deliver for the many people who have been victimised over the years and who look to the Assembly for something positive that recognises their hurt and loss and delivers proper justice.

Ms Finnegan: Sinn Féin welcomes the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill and the opportunity to debate it today at its Second Stage. Sentencing policy is something that communities across our society feel very strongly about. Too often, the public see serious offenders receiving sentences that appear to fall short of reflecting the harm caused to victims and families. When that happens, confidence in our justice system is damaged. Therefore, it is important that we examine the proposals in the Bill carefully and ensure that sentencing policy prioritises public protection, justice for victims and accountability for those who commit serious crimes.

Today, I will focus on two particularly important areas in the Bill: Charlotte's law and the proposals around tariff setting for murder cases, especially in the context of violence against women and girls.

First, on Charlotte's law, for families whose loved ones have been murdered but whose remains have never been recovered, the suffering is unimaginable. The pain of loss is compounded by the cruelty of not knowing where their loved ones lie. We pay tribute to the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian, who have campaigned with enormous courage and dignity to ensure that the issue cannot be ignored.

The Bill represents an important step forward. Offenders who refuse to disclose the location of a victim's remains prolong the suffering of families, and it is right that the justice system recognises that. As the legislation progresses, we must ensure that it is robust, legally sound and capable of delivering the justice and truth that families deserve.

Secondly, I will address the tariff settings for murder cases, particularly in the light of the ongoing crisis around violence against women and girls. Over the past month, we have heard harrowing details in the trials relating to the murders of Natalie McNally and Chloe Mitchell, and, just days ago, we learned of the tragic killing of Ellie Flanagan, a young woman whose life was taken far too soon. Since 2020, some 29 women have been murdered in the North, the majority of whom were killed or attacked in their own homes. Those are not isolated tragedies. They present a deeply troubling pattern of violence against women and girls. That is why it is right that violence against women and girls is recognised as an Executive priority and why sentencing policy must reflect the seriousness of those crimes.

The proposals in the Bill to increase starting tariffs for murder cases are therefore welcome, recognising that the most serious crimes must carry consequences that reflect the devastation that is caused to families and communities. Legislation alone, however, will not end the crisis. We must also understand and challenge the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence against women and girls to persist. We must ensure that victims are supported while perpetrators are held fully accountable.

Sinn Féin will support the Bill's progress to Committee Stage. We will continue to scrutinise its provisions carefully to ensure that it strengthens our justice system, delivers for victims and sends a clear message that violence, particularly against women and girls, will not be tolerated.

Ms Egan: I welcome the opportunity to give some initial reflections on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill at Second Stage on behalf of the Alliance Party. As the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) states, the Bill:

which commenced public consultation in 2019, with additional constituent parts covering:

I thank Minister Long and her departmental officials for their diligent work in bringing forward this important and particularly complex legislation, which will make sentencing more consistent and transparent for all across Northern Ireland. The practice of sentencing, including what those sentences are and their time frames, has been the basis of much public discussion over the past few years. I commend the Bill as a vehicle to address issues that have arisen. It is particularly welcome that it comes in tandem with the newly announced sentencing review, while further initial scoping is projected to go out for public consultation next year.

The practice of sentencing by our judiciary is beyond important in our criminal legal system. It benchmarks crimes that are committed, and it is a public statement on what the consequences for each offence should be. It sends a message about what the public and our society as a whole stand for. Naturally, and as, I believe, the Bill achieves, the needs of victims and families, public sentiment and rehabilitation should be placed at the centre of how we determine sentences. As a member of the Justice Committee, I welcome the Minister's open communication with us on the Bill, including pre-introductory and post-introductory briefings from departmental officials.

I will take each Part of the Bill in turn, with a particular focus on the sections that refer to unduly lenient sentences and the aggravation attached to the failure to disclose information about victims' remains. Part 1 provides for the first time in Northern Ireland a clear statement in statute of the purposes and principles of the sentencing of adult offenders. The Alliance Party welcomes that, alongside the provisions that legally compel courts to have regard for relevant sentencing guidance when determining outcomes for offenders. Consistency in sentencing is paramount in ensuring public confidence in our criminal justice system and laying a clear foundation of purposes and principles. It provides transparency for all those who engage with it. The predictability of sentencing, where possible, is important.

Part 2 deals with the creation of new suspended sentence orders for adult offenders, which can specify one or more community requirements. Part 3 places a duty on the court, when passing a life sentence, to state in open court the reasons for deciding such a sentence and to explain to the offender the effect of it. Parts 2 and 3 interlink with an important stage in the offender's journey, and I welcome their utility in supporting the understanding of consequences and pathways to rehabilitation and, in some cases, in lowering the risk of reoffending.

Part 4 focuses on unduly lenient sentences. It simplifies and consolidates existing legislation to provide that, where the Director of Public Prosecutions determines that a sentence handed down by the Crown Court is unduly lenient, it can be referred to the Court of Appeal. The Alliance Party welcomes that move to bring consistency to the existing scheme and recognises that it aims to provide assurances to victims and their families who do not see prosecution outcomes and punishments as proportionate to the traumatising crime that has been committed. I see the benefit of that, providing clear space for review when there are concerns for public safety, particularly when the offences prosecuted include sexual violence or paedophilia, for example.

The tidying up and clarity brought by this legislation provides a path to secure justice when justice in the first instance may have been questioned. Queries have been raised to and by the Justice Committee about why that has not, from the outset, included summary trial offences in the Magistrates' Court, but I put it on record that the legislation does put in place regulation-making powers for the Department to expand that to specific offences that are prosecuted through the Magistrates' Court at a later date, once more policy development has been completed.

Part 5 of the Bill is very welcome and deals with the failure to disclose information about the remains of victims. That follows an incredibly brave and determined campaign by the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian. I know that they are here today, and we must pay tribute to them. I understand that they welcome these provisions today. What those families have endured is unimaginable, and I hope that this legislative step recognises their trauma and pain. These provisions will create an additional custodial period for a person who has been convicted of murder or manslaughter, where the court believes that they have information about where or how the victim's remains are disposed of but the person involved does not disclose that information. This legislation means that, for not disclosing where a victim's remains are, perpetrators will receive an additional custodial period that will not be less than 30% of the initial notional custodial period or sentence. That is welcome and incredibly important for victims' families and loved ones in their journey with trying to come to terms with a terribly traumatic loss that has happened in their life. The legislation is unique and gives a formulaic provision for how this can be dealt with if a disclosure is made post-sentencing. I welcome the fact that that accompanies the implementation of legislation similar to Helen's law, which places a duty on parole commissioners to consider information relating to the prisoner's non-disclosure when they are making decisions relating to the prisoner as a matter of public protection.

Alliance's reflections on Parts 6 and 7 of the Bill, which are on statutory aggravation and the increase of penalties in relation to road traffic offences, where death and serious injury is caused, will be covered in more detail by my party colleagues. The provisions are welcome, and I am extremely grateful to Enda Dolan's family, who are here today. They have been campaigning for this for years.

To finish, I note the EFM's reference to the Bill's financial effects, which are primarily seen as deliverable within existing resources. In a particularly challenging financial environment for our Executive, I am encouraged by that. The cost implications for the Probation Board of the introduction of community requirements as an option for inclusion in suspended sentences are of note, but I welcome the Department's commitment to a costing exercise pre implementation to ensure that it is doable.

I can see the Bill's provisions playing a real role in our Executive's joint ambition for safer communities, as noted in our Programme for Government. I look forward to working with my fellow members of the Justice Committee on the scrutiny of the Bill and engaging with the Minister, her Department and a vast array of stakeholders on its contents during our call for evidence. As already noted, sentencing plays a vital role in the functioning of any healthy democratic society. Public opinion over time shifts and changes, so our sentencing practice must, in turn, match that pace. This Bill is a welcome step forward.

Mr Beattie: I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for introducing it. The Minister was very clear and concise when she outlined the Bill's purpose, and I agree an awful lot with the Committee Chair's words on what he saw as some of the issues with the Bill. It is incumbent on us all now to work together on the Bill. Of course, we will be supporting it as it moves through Second Stage to Committee Stage. I do not intend to go through all of the Bill's clauses, but I will tap into a few of them with a few of my thoughts. Some aspects of the Sentencing Bill deal with issues that are very rare but have a huge impact on our society and, certainly, on victims.

Many have mentioned Part 5, failure to disclose information about a victim's remains. That is a heinous thing to do and really does have an impact. It is quite simple: if you fail to disclose the whereabouts of your victim's remains having been found guilty, time will be added to your sentence. At the minute, the mathematics and discretion falls to the judge, but that can be no less than 30% of the sentence. In simple terms, if you get 15 years, you could be looking at a sentence being extended to 20 years. That is the simple maths. The other thing that you then need to look at is this: if you have made an early guilty plea, does 33% get taken off? Having been given 15 years, you take 33% off that before you add the 30% aggravated. That is something that we will need to look at.

It is that type of complication in sentencing in general that concerns me. Many people have lost confidence in our justice system and sentencing because it seems to many to be unfair, inconsistent, overly complicated and not transparent and not to match the stated purpose and principles of sentencing, which we have, for the first time, laid out in the Bill in Part 1, namely proportionality, fairness and transparency. The use of punishment sparingly is going to be difficult for victims to hear. When we use the term "use punishment sparingly", that needs to be explained to them. The stated purposes of sentencing are punishment, protection of the public, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation.

I have raised it in the Chamber before, but I am still convinced that Northern Ireland requires a sentencing council in line with what is in England and Wales, the Scottish Sentencing Council and the Sentencing Guidelines and Information Committee in the Irish Republic. A sentencing council would ensure fairness, consistency and transparency. It would outline the effect of the sentence on the victim and how the sentence guidelines were followed. It is a discussion to be had; one that we need to have if we are to go forward. In passing the motion that I tabled last year, the House agreed that we should have a sentencing council, but that was just a motion that was not binding. We need to have that discussion about a sentencing council.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the Member giving way. I know that that is something that he is passionate about. It is for that reason that I put the issue of a sentencing council into the sentencing review that is happening at the moment. When we consulted on that previously, there were very disparate views on its effectiveness and affordability. Before jumping into doing something, I want to be sure that it is the best and most efficient and effective use of resource. I do not disagree with the Member that added transparency and clarity are useful, but I am not sure that a sentencing council in a jurisdiction this small would necessarily be the best use of resource. However, it could be looked at as part of the review, and that might be a good way to build up the evidence.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for that. In some ways, I agree with her about the sentencing review, but the outcomes of that will not then move into the next mandate. As good as she is, she may not be the Minister in the next mandate. In fact, according to some, you may not even be in the Executive. [Inaudible.] [Laughter.]

Mr Beattie: I still think that it is a discussion that needs to be had, because Northern Ireland is the outlier in these islands on something that is important.

I welcome Part 7, including clause 41 and the increase in sentences from 14 years to 20 years for death or injury through dangerous driving or careless driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs. I am slightly concerned about the small increase to the sentence for causing death or serious injury when driving while disqualified to just four years when tried on indictment and 12 months when tried summarily.

That leads me on to an issue that Paul Frew raised, which is that of unduly lenient sentences. The Minister knows that I have already raised the issue with her as well. There needs to be a change made. At the minute, the only cases that can be challenged are those held in the Crown Court. The Crown Court could hand down a 12-month custodial sentence, and that can be challenged. If a magistrate hands down a 12-month custodial sentence, however, that cannot be challenged. I do not fully understand fully why the two should not be aligned.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that he is being generous with his time. I will come on to that in more detail, but I will say for now that the difference is that, if a 12-month custodial sentence in the Magistrates' Court is appealed, it cannot be changed, because that is, by and large, the maximum sentence permitted there. By exception, two-year sentences are possible in the Magistrates' Court. The real challenge is where the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) chooses to prosecute the case. If it prosecutes it in the Crown Court, and somebody gets only a year, it can be appealed. If they get a year in the Magistrates' Court, however, that is the maximum sentence available.

Mr Beattie: Again, I thank the Minister for her intervention. It is a really important discussion piece, and I have raised it before. If we had been able to challenge sentences in the Magistrates' Court previously, we could have dealt earlier with some of the issues facing us. I have said before in the Chamber that, up until recently, cases involving non-fatal strangulation were, by a majority of some 300 cases, heard in the Magistrates' Court, and not one sentence was able to be challenged. Fifteen cases were heard in the Crown Court, and the sentences could be challenged, and that was up to a maximum sentence of, I believe, three years. I think that you said two, Minister, but I thought that it was three. That is why there needs to be alignment. I am not sure how difficult it would be to align the two.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. The issue with the three years is what we are considering when looking to increase the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court. If we go down that route and increase its jurisdiction as intended, there will be the opportunity to add unduly lenient sentences in that context. In the context, however, in which the maximum sentence is 12 months, as is the case currently — by exception, there are a small number of offences for which it is two years — it would not make sense to do that. If, however, we do increase sentences at the same time, we can look at increasing the opportunity for appeal against undue leniency.

Mr Beattie: I have to say this: does that not add to the debate? It is a complex issue, and the Minister is right. If we can all have a grown-up debate on the Bill, we can come up with something transformative. I really consider the Bill to be something that can be transformative, although, right now, it is a little narrow. Its scope could be widened slightly.

I will not speak to some of the other clauses, because they have been covered in great detail right across the House. I will, however, raise a couple of issues that need to be addressed in the legislation. Even we do not see an outcome, they need to be discussed. First, we need to formalise and put on a statutory footing the process for pre-release testing of life-tariff prisoners. That could be in Part 3 of the Bill. At the moment, there is an obligation to do that. The Minister was clear that she must ready life-sentence prisoners for release at the end of their tariff. There is, however, nothing in the Bill to show what that is supposed to look like. I know that the Minister disagrees with me when I say that there is a conflict between the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, but, as I see it, we can fix that if we put something into Part 3 to formalise that process.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Of course.

Mrs Long: The legal position is clear: there is no conflict. People are released on licence under the Life Sentence Order only when they have served their tariff but can be released by the prison, under the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules, at any time during that period for good reason, and one of those good reasons is rehabilitation.

I want to make the Member aware, because there has not been a previous opportunity for me to do so, that we are looking to do a review of how we go about doing pre-release testing with independent scrutiny. I am confident that the system is working well. Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) has said that it agrees, and the Parole Commissioners have not raised any issue with us about how we operate pre-release testing. I recognise, however, that the public have to be confident about it as well. Along with the director general of the Prison Service, we have looked at how we can bring forward that review, and I will hopefully have more to tell you about that in the weeks ahead.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister. That is good news. It is the very point that I raised. We can look at these things. If it turns out that what we are doing is right and proper and the best way to get things to work, that is what we will do. However, if it can be improved and can give families more confidence, it is right to do that. That is what could make the Bill transformative.

We need to review sentence discount, and we can do so through the Bill. At the minute, for a guilty plea made at the earliest opportunity, you can get 33% off your sentence. If you are guilty, that is a great inducement to say, "I'm guilty". That is fair. The issue comes with the late guilty plea. A guilty plea can be made as late as the day the trial starts, and, for that, you can get between 20% and 25% off your sentence. That is an inducement for people not to plead guilty. Some of our cases last 750 days or more, and, as has been mentioned, some people say, "Do you know what? If I just hold off and don't make a guilty plea, even though I know I'm guilty, there's a good chance that witnesses will fall off and the victim will decide not to go any further". Some people are waiting —.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does the Member agree that that is specifically highlighted by the number of drop-offs in cases of domestic and sexual violence against women and girls?

Mr Beattie: The Member is absolutely right. I asked the Minister a question about that, and I got a really good answer. A lot of people make late guilty pleas in sexual offence cases, because they think that the victim will drop off before it gets to that point. The question is —.

Mrs Long: I really appreciate the Member giving way, and I apologise, but this is something that I am genuinely passionate about. It is really important to look at how infrequently domestic abuse cases are made out in court and contrast that with the figures for domestic abuse contest cases that have been heard in the remote evidence centre, where victims feel confident enough to turn up: we now have a 92% conviction rate. Many of those cases will be admissions of guilt on the day, because the witness has come to give their evidence, and others will go through the court process and be convicted. That shows the degree to which the system is gamed by some people in the hope that their victim will lose heart and withdraw from the case. Support for victims is important, and speeding up justice is important — I totally agree — but that is one of the starkest changes that I have seen through the use of remote evidence centres.

Mr Beattie: The Minister laid it out well that some people are gaming the system. I sometimes wonder whether we should think outside the box. To speed up justice, we should make this clear: if you are guilty and you plead guilty early, you will get 33% off your sentence or maybe even 35% or a little bit more; but, if you delay your plea, you will get nothing. That would take away the ability to game the system and speed up justice.

I welcome the Bill, the words from the Minister and all the really good contributions that have been made in the Chamber. I want the Bill to be transformational. We have little time in which to achieve that transformation. I want to work achieve it. I want to work with the Minister and the Committee to create good legislation, but I want that legislation to look to the future in changing things. I want it not just to do the small, narrow pieces that we can do, important as those are, but to look at wider sentencing.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, as Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. This debate will continue following Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Emma Sheerin.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): This is a deeply worrying time, and our priority is to ensure the safety and well-being of people from here who are in the region. The deputy First Minister and I and our officials are fully engaged with the British and Irish Governments on the matter. We met the Prime Minister and the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs last week to discuss the ongoing impact of the conflict in the Middle East on our diaspora who are living there and travelling through there. We reinforced the fact that we stand ready to assist in helping people from here who are impacted on in the region in any way that we can.

We receive twice-daily briefings from our officials on the situation, and we have been working actively to use all the communication channels available to us to encourage people affected to register their presence through the relevant government portals and to keep up to date with the official travel guidance, as it continues to change.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Useful information given at those critical meetings led to Northern Ireland citizens receiving support to come home and to stay safe. People with British passports and those with Irish passports were able to avail themselves of that support. How can the First Minister justify staying away, and how can she look those people in the eye?

Mrs O'Neill: I set out clearly the reason why I did not attend the briefings, and I am comfortable with my position on that. I know that, whilst the Member's party is on the wrong side of the war scenario — it has been a cheerleader from day 1 — what people want to hear is what we are doing to help them.

All through the crisis, we have engaged with the Irish Government and the British Government; we have had those twice-daily briefings; we have ensured that we have been informed; and we have promoted all the information across the Executive Office platforms, whether on social media or regular media. I am comfortable with the role that we have played in supporting people, which is ultimately what this is about. We have no responsibility for many of the issues, but we amplified the messages from the British Government and the Irish Government, which was really important.

All Members have probably dealt with families affected by the crisis, including people who have, as the Member rightly pointed out, British or Irish passports, even in the same family. All the issues were resolved because of the way in which we were able to put questions directly to both Governments throughout the crisis, and we will continue to do so.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The decision by the United States of America and Israel to launch an unprovoked attack on the people of Iran is a flagrant abuse of international law. Does the First Minister agree that those illegal war decisions have consequences not only for the people of Iran but, directly, for people here?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I share those concerns, as do the majority of us in the House. The real-life implications are the human cost — the tragedy of loss of life — throughout the areas that have been impacted on, but a real cost is also felt here by our constituents as their costs rise. That is why, throughout the crisis, we have engaged at every level with the British Government, whether through engagement directly with Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister, or through our Ministers engaging directly with their counterparts on energy or finances.

There are real-life implications here. Political choices made in London to invest in illegal war over public services cause real detriment to people's lives. We all know, I have no doubt, from being contacted at our constituency offices in past weeks that people are really worried about rising costs. They were already struggling with the cost-of-living crisis; their household budgets were already stretched. Now, because of the war and the escalation in the conflict, our householders bear the brunt of all of that. Those are the real-life consequences that we all have to be alert to. We all need to face one way in making the strongest possible case for support for households. That is what we have focused on in the weeks since the latest international war broke out.

Mr McNulty: On 2 March, I asked the First Ministers what plans they had:

That question was due for answer on 5 March. It is now 16 March. Why have the First Ministers not seen fit to answer my question about a crisis that is impacting on every household in Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: I am sure that we will get the answer to you as quickly as possible, but, with all due respect, our answering your question is not going to help somebody with their household bills. The priority is to work with the British Government and challenge them to ensure that we have the right investment package so that we can help people through this cost-of-living crisis. The announcement today does not touch the surface of what is required by households that are really struggling. We need to continue to work in that regard. That is why I said that we all need to face in the same direction and stand up for our constituents. We need to stand up strongly together to make the case for a proper package to help people through the crisis. These are the real-life implications of war. Our constituents here have to bear the brunt of decisions that have been taken elsewhere, so we need to fight together for the people whom we represent.

Mrs O'Neill: We welcome the prospect of the first multi-year Budget in over 10 years and recognise the potential benefits that a multi-year plan could bring about. It would provide an important opportunity for all Departments to plan more strategically. However, we recognise the challenges that the Executive continue to face. Ministers remain committed to ensuring that our Budget is fit for purpose and meets our needs. Multi-year budgeting has had an important role to play in managing inescapable costs and delivering key initiatives and commitments. The process for the proposed draft Budget required Departments to submit detailed resource and capital departmental expenditure limit (DEL) information, with the Department of Finance using those returns, alongside the funding limits that were set in the spending review, to develop a draft Budget for public consultation. That 12-week consultation closed on 3 March. We note and welcome the £400 million reserve claim that was agreed with the Treasury during that time. However, we recognise that the repayments will impact on Budget funding available for services over the next three years. The recent announcement of a further £387 million for the Executive over the three-year period is welcome, as it acknowledges the need for further funding to be made available for public services here.

Engagement with Treasury is continuing at pace throughout this period. The purpose of the open-book review is to give the Treasury a fuller picture and understanding of the significant pressures that our Executive face. The reality is that we are underfunded. We have a case to make in that respect, and we intend to do so.

Miss Dolan: I thank the First Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the current global instability makes it even more important that we maximise the opportunity provided by a three-year Budget to protect and stabilise our public services?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I just reflected on the challenges that all our constituents are facing, including cost-of-living pressures, rising energy costs and wider global instability. All of that adds further strain to every household out there. Those pressures place an additional financial burden on our public services at a time when our Executive Budget is already constrained because of inadequate Budget settlements from Westminster, which is why getting to a juncture where we have a three-year Budget is so important. It would give us the ability to stabilise services, plan more strategically and have a bit more foresight and medium-term thinking about investment. That is why we are doing the things that we are doing. It is why we are engaged in the open-book exercise and why we are working together to look at the challenges that we have in each Department. Ultimately — I made this point to Keir Starmer last week — we have to have an adequate funding settlement for our Executive to be able to do the things that we want to do. We will play our part when it comes to transformation and trying to do things differently, but we need the resources to back that up. We continue to make that case to the Treasury.

Ms Forsythe: Does the First Minister accept that the draft Budget was not agreed by the Executive? Does she recognise that, if we are to secure a three-year Budget, the Finance Minister needs to seriously engage with all Ministers?

Mrs O'Neill: We are all aware, because he has said it publicly, that the Finance Minister published the draft Budget so that we can get the consultation process carried out. Quite a number of people have responded to the consultation, showing the interest in the Budget among the wider public: 370 responses were received. The prize for everybody is to get to a three-year Budget, which we have not had for over 10 years. It will not be a magic solution to the challenges here, but it will certainly be a much better position for us to be in as an Executive, allowing us to have more longer-term planning.

Throughout the process, the Finance Minister engaged with every single Minister, and he continues to work on his open-book exercise with the Treasury, making a strong case for why we need additional funding. Looking to Scotland and Wales, we have a comparatively bad deal. We need to continue to fight our corner. Doing so collectively will be our strength. We raised that directly with Keir Starmer last week and will continue to do so. We have until the end of the month: that is the juncture at which we have to have a Budget agreed, and I encourage every party to engage constructively in order to make sure that we get to that point.

Ms Bradshaw: First Minister, you talked about the need for strategic, long-term investment in public services. I remain concerned, as we hurtle towards the end of the mandate, that we have not seen the investment strategy 2050. Can you update the House on when we will see that?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. There is a logical chronology developing. The investment strategy should, naturally, be published directly following the Budget being agreed, because we will then understand exactly what capital allocation we are dealing with across all Departments. A number of other things that are happening now will have implications for capital projects, not least the challenge to the A5 and what that means for other Executive projects. All those things have to be factored into the final document. I am hopeful that we will be able to come back, on the other side of the three-year Budget having been agreed, to talk to you about a proper investment strategy that clearly sets out our priorities for the next 10 years.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, the Opposition agrees. We want to see the maximum possible funding being made available to the Executive, and we will always speak up for that. The spring statement allocated an extra £220 million for the Executive to spend in 2026-27. In that financial year, the repayment of the previous reserve claim will be £80 million, leaving more than £100 million of that allocation for the Executive to allocate. Will you advocate for some of that money to go to topping up support for households, given the spike in oil prices?

Mrs O'Neill: No, where we should all be collectively focused — including you — is on making the strongest possible case to the Treasury. The Executive's budget does not have the firepower — that is how the Finance Minister described it last week — that we need; we do not have an appropriate level of funding to help people to get through this spike in prices and the cost-of-living crisis. That is why we need to continue to work collectively to make the case to the Treasury. We have a strong case to make, and we continue to do so. Look at the stark figures for relative need: Scotland is 20% above need, Wales is 8% above need, and we are only 0·06% above need. That in itself makes the case. That is our starting point, and I encourage us all to work together to fight for households here and to fight to get proper money that will help to get people through the crisis. What is being thrown out to us today does not even scratch the surface of what people need.

Mrs O'Neill: We recognise that promoting good relations and building trust across all sections of the community are central to the Executive’s commitment to a united and shared society in which policing plays an important role. We acknowledge the benefits that diverse workforces can bring across the public sector, reflecting the increasingly diverse communities that we serve. Everyone should have the same opportunities, regardless of their background.

A full review of the current Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy has been completed. We are working with officials to bring forward a refreshed cross-cutting approach to good relations, which we believe will provide an opportunity to strengthen trust, inclusion and shared outcomes across society, supporting more positive relationships between public services and the communities that they serve. Policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), funded by the Department of Justice and the Policing Board, work at a community level to improve community safety and increase confidence in policing. We believe they have a vital role to play in building community relations, going forward.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the First Minister. We are approaching the 16th anniversary of the transfer of policing and justice powers to the Assembly. First Minister, do you agree that a return to 50:50 recruitment and the appointment of the next Justice Minister by the d'Hondt process would go some way towards building community confidence in our policing and justice arrangements and that it is long past time that we used the d'Hondt process to allocate the Justice Ministry?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks for the question. On the first point, if the PSNI is to succeed in delivering what we all want to see, which is a modern policing service, it has to be representative of the community that it serves. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. I am on record as saying that I support the return to 50:50 recruitment, because it is an important first step in rebuilding confidence in policing and ensuring that the policing institutions command maximum community support across all sections of our community.

On the second point about Justice by d'Hondt, I absolutely agree with what you said. As we approach the 16th anniversary of the transfer of policing and justice powers, that is one of the things that remain outstanding. If we are to build confidence in policing, it has to involve the whole policing and justice family and structure. I certainly make the case that that anomaly needs to be resolved. I make that point to everybody who is elected to the Chamber. It is one of the outstanding issues that need to be addressed, and doing so would represent another milestone in strengthening democratic accountability and confidence in our policing and justice arrangements. The principle is simple: our institutions always work best when they serve and operate on the basis of an expressed democratic mandate, and that also runs true for the Department of Justice. I raised that with the British Government in the last week or so, because it needs to be resolved, and I will continue to make that case.

Mr K Buchanan: First Minister, are you content that all political parties are doing enough to promote joining the police as a viable career? I ask that as a member of the Policing Board. Some parties complain about representation but do not promote joining the police. What do you say to those parties?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said in my initial answer, the service needs to be representative of society. I constantly make that point to the Chief Constable. All the parties that sit on the Policing Board have a role in making sure that the Police Service is representative. I engage regularly. I raise directly with the Chief Constable areas of concern that, I know, are very much felt in the nationalist and republican community.

I have been to graduation ceremonies, and I have called on people to join the PSNI. However, we will have a fair and effective policing service only when it represents the community that it serves. The number of Catholics who came forward for the latest recruitment process should worry everybody. That is a backward step, and it should worry every one of us.

There is also a challenge to the PSNI. What is it doing to ensure that it creates a space where the Police Service is inclusive and representative of the community? What is it doing to ensure that it encourages people — in particular, those from the nationalist community, women and minority groups, who are not well represented in our Police Service either — to come forward? The PSNI has a big job of work to do. Of course, politically, we all have a role to play in that. It is not one or the other: it is both.

Miss McAllister: Of course, Alliance supports diversity, as it is an important priority in ensuring the representativeness of the PSNI, but 50:50 recruitment did not work for the long-term sustainability of diversity. Does the Minister agree that, if it did not work in the past, it surely will not work in the future and that, instead, our priority should be on the root causes of why Catholics are not coming forward to join the PSNI? Does the Minister also agree that, whilst the Justice Ministry is not in the d'Hondt process, it still counts towards the party's allocation in that process?

Mrs O'Neill: The reason 50:50 did not work is that it was stopped suddenly just when we were starting to see some change coming through. I put that directly to the Chief Constable, who said that he had an open mind about it. It is important to note that. It should be one part of a bigger jigsaw. A combination of factors needs to be looked at, including 50:50 and how the recruitment campaigns are run.

If the PSNI knows that there are under-represented groups, what is it doing to make sure that its recruitment campaigns are effective? Although I accept the Member's point about how the Justice Minister is appointed, that does not take away from the fact that the Department should be run like every other Department. How the Justice Minister is appointed is an anomaly from 16 years ago, and it needs to be corrected. It feeds into the jigsaw of trying to create a system that is fairer and inclusive. There are no no-go positions for anybody, and that is where we need to get to.

Mr McGrath: As a member of the Policing Board, I know that one of the issues that is affecting recruitment is the lack of neighbourhood officers: those officers who can go into communities and, in slow time, talk to people, engage with community groups and organisations and encourage people to join the Police Service. Does the First Minister agree that the obliteration of the Police Service's budget, which is a result of the Executive's Budget constraints, is preventing it from being able to recruit the right number of people to the force and the neighbourhood officer team?

Mrs O'Neill: I am sure that the Member will agree that the blame for the Executive's Budget constraints lie firmly at the feet of the Treasury. I have spoken at length today about the fact that we are so underfunded, relative to the likes of Scotland and Wales in particular. What is fundamental to all of this is that, if we want to invest more in our public services, which I genuinely believe that we all do, we have to have the right funding model, which we do not. If we do not have enough in the centre to enable us to invest in, say, community policing, the health service or education, we will always face challenges when trying to operate within the limitations of the Budget. I therefore continue to make the case for why we need more. We want to have good public services and more neighbourhood policing. We want our health waiting lists to be reduced. We want to see our children with additional needs being supported. We want to do all those things, but if we are starting on the back foot as a result of underfunding from London, doing them will always be a problem for us.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 4, 8 and 11 together. As I have said, I am extremely concerned about the situation in the Middle East, particularly the humanitarian impact on the citizens of the countries that are currently under attack and on the people from here who are in the region. Many find themselves stranded in very uncertain circumstances. We are fully engaged with the British and Irish Governments, and, last week, we met the Prime Minister and the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs to discuss the ongoing situation and to offer our assistance to help people in any way in which we can. In particular, we raised the issue of people from here being able to register with either British or Irish embassies, regardless of whether they are travelling on an Irish passport or a British passport. We are pleased that they have been able to accommodate that request in their processes.

We welcome the commencement of chartered flights, which are prioritising the most vulnerable people. We have also seen the restarting of limited commercial flights to Britain and Ireland from the region. We therefore continue to communicate with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Office regularly, and we have stood up all our coordination mechanisms to ensure that any emerging issues are quickly detected and escalated. It is very much an evolving situation, and we are using all our communication channels to encourage people who are affected to register their presence through the relevant government portals and to keep up to date with official travel guidance.

The Executive discussed the deeply worrying situation at our meeting last week. All Ministers expressed concern about the humanitarian consequences of the crisis and agreed to keep developments under review, particularly the economic impact, which many Members have spoken about today. Locally, we have seen an almost immediate impact, with oil prices spiking, exceeding $100 a barrel last week. That is the first time that that has happened since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): First Minister, will you draw your answer to a close, please? We are at two minutes and six seconds.

Mrs O'Neill: The Minister for the Economy is continuing to engage with her counterparts, as is the Minister of Finance.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht a freagra.

First Minister, at the end of your answer, you touched on fuel supply issues. Is there a risk to our energy supply as a result of the warfare? Did you discuss that with the British Prime Minister at your recent meeting?

Mrs O'Neill: On the first point, we are told that there is no immediate risk to energy supply here. We are, however, continuing to monitor the situation, because we do not know where everything is going to end up.

The Economy Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, remains in ongoing contact with both the Irish and British Governments. As I have spoken about today, the immediate concern is the impact of rising energy costs. Those increases are being felt acutely by families who were already dealing with the cost-of-living crisis and now have to deal with those energy costs on top of that. Minister Archibald engaged with her counterpart the British Energy Minister, Michael Shanks, and with the Irish Government, and she made the case very strongly that the same support and assistance that was made available when the war broke out in Ukraine should be provided now. She has also engaged with suppliers on the price hikes that we are really concerned about.

On your second point, yes, I raised that directly with Keir Starmer last week, and I pushed him very hard on what he is going to do. As I said, what has been announced today does not cut it, so we have to continue to make the case for an urgent support package to mitigate the worst excesses of what people are experiencing right now.

Mr Clarke: I thank the First Minister for her answer. First Minister, no one underestimates the impact that war can have on communities. I am not sure that those who are involved in the war will be listening later today to the debate on a motion that your party has tabled, and I am not sure what difference it will make. However, my substantive question was about what conversations you and your colleagues have had on the potential economic impact on Northern Ireland. What are you going to do to assist with a response to that, given that you are supposed to be the First Minister for all?

Mrs O'Neill: As I have said throughout Question Time, we continue to make the case for why we need support for households here. These are the real-life implications of war — a war that your party championed from day 1. You have been gung-ho and have been cheerleading this war from day 1. You are on the wrong side; I have to tell you that. I will tell you what you did throughout the week: you called it wrong. You have been cheerleading this war from day 1, and then you tried to create deflection and distraction to take away from the fact that you have been so gung-ho about this war. Your constituents, just like mine, are suffering. Your constituents are worried about how they will pay their bills. Mine are, too. Everybody elected to this Chamber is worried about their constituents, so, instead of the nonsense, distraction, point-scoring and politicking, you should work together, fight the corner of your constituents, fight to get support into households and fight for people to get help with their bills. They are worried, and that is what they want to hear from this House, not the DUP's nonsense.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Declan Kearney. Declan, can you keep it short?

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire.

Once again, First Minister, some within political unionism have engaged in despicable warmongering and distraction and, of course, have cast themselves as outliers in relation to support for human rights and multilateralism. First Minister, will you commit to being a voice for peace, diplomacy and international law?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): First Minister, you have a minute and 30 seconds.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you.

I absolutely agree with the Member. I believe that the DUP has absolutely been on the wrong side of this the whole way through. From day 1, the DUP has been cheerleading this war, and you should be ashamed of yourselves, because what we are seeing is a flagrant breach of international law and countries turning their backs on the UN charter. We need to see an end to this conflict, a de-escalation, our trade routes opened again and an end to the deaths of thousands of people. We need to see negotiations, peace, dialogue and support for local households. That is what I remain focused on in my role as First Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Pat, we have 45 seconds.

Mrs O'Neill: We are pleased to say that the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, the Irish Language Commissioner and the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition have been in post since 13 November last year. The NIO commenced further provisions of the Act on 27 January to enable the offices to carry out their statutory duties, including the Act’s "due regard" duty on public authorities with regard to the national and cultural identity principles. We met Katy, Pól and Lee for an introductory meeting on 9 February, when we discussed the important role that they play in promoting and celebrating our rich cultural diversity, identities, languages and traditions. We wish them all every success in their new roles and look forward to working with them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Well done, First Minister. That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill: I have repeated myself throughout Question Time, but I will do so again. From day 1, we have been fighting for households here and highlighting the impact of conflict and what it means to households on a day-to-day basis when it comes to the spikes in oil prices that they are experiencing. From day 1, we have been engaged with the British Government and made the case to them for supports. From day 1, Caoimhe Archibald and her counterpart have been engaged with them on energy support. She has been doing that because, as you know, a lot of the firepower that we need to support people comes directly from the Treasury. John O'Dowd has been doing that, and I have been doing that at every turn as well. From day 1, we have been making the case for our constituents when it comes to dealing with the crisis that we are all facing.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, you have not answered my question. I did not ask simply about making the case. I respect that, and I agree with you that the UK Government need to provide the financial firepower. It is a global oil crisis: I am not being unreasonable about that. However, the bare minimum that the public should be able to expect is for you and the deputy First Minister, the Economy Minister, the Finance Minister and, yes, the Communities Minister to get together, design a scheme and then go to the UK Government and say, "This is what we want to deliver for the people of the North. Fund it". You have not done that. There has been indecision, squabbling and falling out. Why have your Government, again, been addicted to shifting blame to the UK Government, and then to each other, rather than on focusing on the people who matter most — the people who send us here?

Mrs O'Neill: Again, you accuse others of point-scoring and squabbling, but you are doing the same thing yourself. People want to hear from the Chamber what we are doing on their behalf. What I have said is that, from day 1, we have been fighting our corner on behalf of people here. They need help with their bills. I have set out for you what those Ministers have been doing — what Caoimhe Archibald and our Ministers have been doing. Yes: throughout the week, there has been a lot of noise and deflection from the Benches opposite. You know why. Call it out for what it is, Matthew, instead of doing the same thing and joining in with the chorus. I suggest to you that, given the quantum of what we need to support households right now, the best thing that we can all do is work together, fight for our constituents, dial down the noise and nonsense and actually get on with trying to get money into people's pockets. That is where my focus is.

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member knows, housing is one of our Programme for Government priorities. He will also know that we are working to finalise our Budget. I hope that we get to the point, at the end of the month, where we have a three-year Budget in place that will allow us to know exactly how much we can prioritise on every area of public spending, whether that is in housing, education, health or infrastructure. We need to get to the point where we have a three-year Budget. Then, we will fully understand exactly how we can meet our targets when it comes to housing. I am fully committed to the targets that we have set for housing.

Mr Bradley: Minister, can you ensure that there is adequate finance for the building of social housing throughout Northern Ireland because, for people who come through my office and, I am sure, the offices of other MLAs throughout Northern Ireland, the most important issue is the lack of housing?

Mrs O'Neill: We agree that housing is a priority, which is why it is in the Programme for Government, but we have spent an awful lot of time today talking about the constrained Budget that we have and the fact that we are underfunded. That is why we make that case. Policy decisions that are taken in London to prioritise military spending over public services have a real impact on people here. That is why I believe that, in the longer term, we would be much better placed to fight our own corner by having all the powers devolved here and working together in a new constitutional arrangement. Whilst we work towards that point, I make the case at every turn for better funding of our public services, including housing. I will continue to do so, as First Minister.

We are underfunded. The British Government are underfunding us, and that impacts on our ability to deliver on the things that I know we are all passionate about because, like you, my office is inundated with messages from people who are struggling to get a home and a roof over their head for their families.

Mrs O'Neill: I am sure that, when MLAs went to their constituency offices on Friday or over the past couple of weeks, they all engaged with people who were really worried. People were panic buying and trying to get oil in, because they were really fearful about where it would all end up. None of us know whether the recent rises are where it will stop or whether it will get worse. That is why we need support for householders. That is why we make the case to the Treasury.

I find the £17 million that has been put on the table today to be a real slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to families who are struggling to pay their oil bills. Nearly two thirds of households here rely on oil, and they are thinking, "What is this £17 million? What does it look like for me as an individual?". If the £17 million were to be applied across the board to every household, we would be talking about £30 each. That will not scratch the issue, especially when some people's bills have gone up to £1,000 for 900 litres of oil in the past week.

John O'Dowd, as the Finance Minister, has already communicated with the Department for Communities about the £17 million that was announced today, because we need to see it being turned into delivery. Let us get that £17 million out to people and target lower-income households. The announcement was just made this morning, but it is clear —. I have asked the Department for Communities how we can get that £17 million out, how it will be targeted and how quickly that can be done, because people want answers on that. We need to do that piece of work whilst advocating for more support, because £17 million does not cut it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Does the First Minister agree that, while there is disappointment over the British Prime Minister's announcement, the DUP's deliberate misrepresentations, peddling of inaccuracies about the reduction of electricity costs and erroneous claims about there being £81 million to spend show that, when it comes to finances, the current DUP leader, just like the previous leader, is not really across every jot and tittle?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. All I heard last week was distraction and deflection from the DUP. That is not what people want to hear. The reality is that, because the DUP had been cheerleading for the war from day 1, it needed to rein back on some of that ground, so it went out and started to create all those mistruths. It was deliberately misleading to people who were worried about their bills. It left people in the position of hearing fake news, if you want to call it that, that money was sitting there and not being distributed to them.

Thankfully, we had a responsible adult in the room in Caoimhe Archibald. She engaged and continued to do so. She set the record straight by saying that the £81 million is not sitting in the Executive coffers; it is money that the British Government need to legislate a change for at Westminster. As soon as that is done, we will get it to households, and we will be able to help people. That is why I made the point today that the noise, distraction and deflection does nothing to serve anybody who is worried about their household bills. From my perspective, I do not want to engage in that. People want to hear a joined-up message from this place that we have their backs and are working hard on their behalf to help them with the cost of living and to get their household bills down. They want to hear that we will call out the big oil companies, particularly when it comes to the like of the price gouging that has been talked about a lot since the start of the conflict.

Mrs O'Neill: The Justice by — [Interruption.]

Sorry, I cannot hear. The fact that the Justice Ministry is not part of the d'Hondt system is an anomaly that has been outstanding for the past 16 years. It needs to be fixed, and I have raised that directly with the Secretary of State. When it comes to titles of offices and everything else, I am not interested in a cosmetic debate, and I know that you are not either. I know that you fundamentally want reform. I too believe in reform, and I think that we should make the arguments together. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is doing a big piece of work. My team is fully engaged in that work, and we will look at all the areas that are put on the table for discussion.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the First Minister for that answer. What representation has the First Minister made to the British and Irish Governments since the passing of the motion on institutional reform late last year?

Mrs O'Neill: You will not be surprised to hear that there is no agreement in the Executive Office, but, at a political level, I have raised the issue of reform with both Governments as recently as the last week to 10 days in my engagement with Helen McEntee, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, and with Hilary Benn directly. They are very aware of my view of reform. The nonsense in some of the debates that we have had in the Chamber around tweaking titles and whatever do not fundamentally change how we do business here. The issue of reform is something that I am up for discussing, and I will continue to work with other like-minded people.

Mrs O'Neill: I thought that the commentary from Arlene Foster was absolutely shameful. Any right-minded person would think that her comments were absolutely shameful. Sadly, I cannot say that I was surprised by the flippancy and arrogance of such a statement, saying, "Let us cut welfare, cut everybody who is in need, take money off the vulnerable and support the militarisation agenda". Then the DUP leader weighed in and doubled down on that very argument. Shame on the DUP. That shows you where its focus lies, and it shows you that that is the style of politics that you get from it.

When people are struggling, our job is to support them. [Interruption.]

When people are struggling —

. The master of distraction and deflection. Whatever you do, do not mention that you are a cheerleader of war. That is what we see.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call Declan to ask a supplementary question, I remind Members on all Benches that Ministers will be heard respectfully. I will not have chuntering from sedentary positions.

Over to you, Declan. Minister, you can have an extra minute.

Mr Kearney: Thank you for that intervention in relation to decorum in the House, Deputy Speaker.

Minister, do you agree that warmongering should have no place in the House and that we should concentrate on what really matters to working people across society in unionist areas, nationalist areas and where people have no political allegiance? We should focus on building houses, uniting against austerity and ensuring that our kids who have special educational needs are properly looked after.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I agree 100%. I made a pledge on day 1 as First Minister to do everything that I could to support citizens across the North. I do not look through a lens of anything other than people, households and families who are struggling. They need our support, and they need us to work together. That includes us rejecting calls that take money out of people's pockets and take money from hard-pressed households. Workers and families deserve to know that we have their back. They deserve to know that we are doing everything that we can to support them. We need to get on with doing the things that matter most to the public: housing, the health service, Lough Neagh, growing our economy, creating job opportunities and fighting for proper investment in our public services. That is what matters to the people whom I speak to every day. Those are the issues that are raised in my constituency office, as is the case, I am sure, for many others. We should not take money out of the pockets of the most vulnerable in society to fund warfare and the weapons of death and destruction. Nobody wants that, and nobody in the Chamber should want that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, First Minister; time is up.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question 15 has been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): With your permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle,

I will answer questions 1, 6 and 10 together.

On 29 January 2026, I outlined my decision to stop further work on the Reval2026 process. In my meeting with the hospitality sector on 29 January, I advised that I was looking forward to engaging with the hospitality sector and other sectors on any proposals that would be brought forward. My immediate focus over the past few weeks has been on advancing the legislation required to facilitate the annual billing exercise for the rating system. Alongside that, I am focused on progressing the draft multi-year Budget, following the close of that consultation earlier this month. As I outlined in the regional rates debate in the House on 10 March, rates bills will issue this year that are based on rateable values in the current valuation list, creating certainty for businesses in respect of their 2026-27 rates bills. I will address the next steps for Reval2026 in due course.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for his update, and I understand that he has a busy in tray at present. Is it his view, then, that he will have a final proposal for Reval2027 or whatever we are going to call it in 2027, because nothing will be published in the remainder of this calendar year?

Mr O'Dowd: It is unlikely that anything will be published in the remainder of this calendar year. We will decide our next move in discussions with all sectors, whether that will be Reval2027 or Reval2028. However, it was right to stop, engage and then decide on a way forward.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, in your statement on 29 January, you said:

How can a business thrive when its proposed net asset value (NAV) jumps from £66,000 to £119,000?

Mr O'Dowd: I cannot comment on any individual business. However, a significant increase in Reval suggests that there was a significant physical extension to the business, a change in the business model where different services were provided or an increase in income for that business. Those are the usual projections. Furthermore, all businesses had the benefit of the COVID moneys removed. There was a significant leap upwards for many businesses in those circumstances, but other businesses will have seen reductions. The Member will be aware that those who focused solely on the hospitality sector now want to focus on other sectors. I currently face pre-action letters from at least one sector that has concerns that, having benefited from Reval2026, it is now losing out as a result of it. It is not a simple as concentrating on one premises or one sector; it is a multifaceted equation. As I said to your colleague, the best way forward was to stop the process, take time to engage and then move forward.

Mr Dickson: Thank you for your answer, Minister. You stated previously that you had asked the hospitality industry to bring forward evidence to make the case for a change in methodology. When do you expect that evidence to come forward, and how long will it take you and your officials to review the evidence in order to ensure that changes can be made?

Mr O'Dowd: The hospitality sector offered to bring evidence to me. I welcome the opportunity to engage with the sector on that evidence when it is presented. The detail of that evidence and the need for discussion around it will dictate how long it will be before I can evaluate it.

Miss Hargey: Minister, will you outline what current supports there are in the rating system for local businesses and what supports you plan to bring forward?

Mr O'Dowd: We currently provide our business sector with around a quarter of a billion pounds' worth of support. Across the whole tax base, 75% of non-domestic properties are currently entitled to some form of rate relief. The current small business rate relief scheme supports almost 30,000 businesses with discounts of between 20% and 50% on their rates. I proposed in my draft Budget a fund of around £10 million to increase support further for the small business sector, which will include the hospitality sector and others.

Mr O'Dowd: Over 77% of funeral directors' chapels of rest in the valuation list here currently benefit from small business rate relief, meaning that they get between 20% and 50% off their rates bill. I have recently completed a consultation process on small business rate relief, and I am considering the responses received to it. I aim to bring proposals to the Executive in the near future to review and extend support provided through that scheme by increasing the thresholds, subject to Executive agreement in the context of the available budget. All rate reliefs and exemptions will be reviewed as part of ongoing review of rate support measures.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his answer. I fully accept that he is doing an awful lot on rates, but he will know that chapels of rest are places of religious worship in the same way in which churches are, and churches are exempt. Importantly, chapels of rest are used by an awful lot of people who have lost young children, because they offer a more intimate setting. That is why I ask the Minister whether he will consider removing business rates completely from chapels of rest.

Mr O'Dowd: Now that the Member has brought that to my attention, I will take it under consideration as we move to the rates review. I am conscious of the very personal and emotive nature of such settings and the services that they offer bereaved families, including, as the Member pointed out, bereaved families who have lost a child.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, are you considering removing rates that are due to be paid on any new categories of business premises in your review of rates?

Mr O'Dowd: We are undertaking a series of reviews, and I do not want to pre-empt any decisions on any information that may come to me. I have said in the House previously that I want to give a rates holiday to businesses that extend their premises physically and so on, but let us work our way through the processes and see where they take us.

Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 9 together. I published my multi-year Budget proposals on 6 January and launched a public consultation on the same day. The draft Budget does not provide the level of funding that I would wish for public services. Rather, it reflects what is possible within the available envelope. The consultation closed on 3 March, and my Department is now analysing the responses before sharing them with the Executive.

Alongside that, engagement with the Treasury on the open-book review of departmental budgets is progressing at pace. The review is designed to give the Treasury a fuller understanding of the significant pressures that we are facing and to strengthen our case for fairer funding for public services. The review is scheduled to complete later this month and, along with the analysis of the consultation responses, will feed into the Executive's final Budget discussions.

The Chancellor's spring forecast provided the Executive with an additional £387 million across the multi-year Budget period. We must also, however, take into account the requirement to repay the reserve claim over three years, with £80 million due in 2026-27 and £160 million due in both 2027-28 and 2028-29. It will be for the Executive, as part of their deliberations on agreeing a final Budget, to determine collectively how the implications of the spring forecast and the reserve claim repayments are reflected in departmental allocations.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that the Barnett consequentials announced last week largely cover the reserve claim, albeit they are short by £20 million, will Departments benefit from that money throughout the period, or will it simply be absorbed by covering the repayments?

Mr O'Dowd: As I read out, the repayment schedule for the reserve claim is £80 million in 2026-27, £160 million in 2027-28 and the same in 2028-29. The allocations for the spring forecast are £227 million in 2026-27, £5·6 million in 2027-28 and £144·9 million in 2028-29. The only year when there is credit, for want of a better term, to the Executive is 2026-27. While all additional funding is welcome, it largely balances off the reserve claim, and we will certainly engage with the British Government on that. It is clear that the Barnett consequentials in the spring forecast funding came about as a result of the historical underfunding and pressures faced by councils in England in SEN provision, and we are facing similar pressures here. As I said in the Chamber previously, that blows out of the water the myth of financial mismanagement. It reflects the reality of the pressures that we are facing in relation to SEN and in relation to healthcare.

Miss Dolan: Minister, what impact has the loss of the stabilisation funding from the restoration package had on public finances and the ability to manage Budgets?

Mr O'Dowd: That has had a significant impact on our Budget and on our ability to deliver and maintain public services and to plan for transformation. The First Minister, in her contribution, reflected on the fact that Scotland is funded at 20% above its need and Wales at in the region of 8% above its need. The £520 million stabilisation fund went a long way to enabling us to be funded at not merely the level of need but at slightly above the level of need to allow us to deliver transformation and make public services sustainable as we move forward. There is a firm argument to be made for the restoration of what was known as the stabilisation package, which was around £520 million per annum.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you acknowledge that there will be a £100 million "credit" — that was the term that you used — in the 2026-27 financial year: the amount of repayment will be significantly lower than the amount that is additional from the spring statement. Given that difference and given that that is additional money to the Executive, can you be specific about what you will use it for? If you are not to use it for energy support, which the First Minister did not think was a good idea a little while ago, and if you are not to use it to supplement local growth money, that is additional money for the Executive. Can you be specific on how it will be spent?

Mr O'Dowd: This is the second Monday in a row on which the leader of the Opposition has asked the Executive to spend their moneys on issues that relate directly to the responsibilities of the British Government. Last week, the Member wanted the spring forecast profile to be spent on the local growth fund. The local growth fund is the responsibility of the British Government. This week, the Member is looking to spend that money on energy costs. Given the scale and quantum of the challenges involved, it is the responsibility of the British Government to intervene directly in that. In fact, last Monday, the Member was seeking the spending of Executive money on those matters.

Those of us who held out and challenged the British Government have had some initial success in this matter. When I meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the end of this week, I will again emphasise the need for the British Government to provide proper funding to all hard-pressed workers and families for energy costs. What will we spend that money on? We will spend it on front-line public services, which is what we were given the money for.

Mr O'Dowd: Following Royal Assent and the enactment of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Act 25 on February 2026, my Department has been working at pace to finalise the draft baby loss certificate scheme regulations. The regulations will set out how parents can access a certificate that formally recognises their loss, which many families told us would bring comfort and acknowledgement at an incredibly difficult time.

It is my intention to provide the draft regulations to the Finance Committee before the Easter recess. I am hopeful that, if the Assembly scrutiny and approval processes proceed without delay, the Assembly will be able to consider the regulations by the beginning of May. I remain committed to ensuring that the scheme is delivered as swiftly and as sensitively as possible so that parents who have endured such heartbreaking loss receive the recognition and support that they deserve. I acknowledge the immense courage of all who shared their personal stories, which helped to shape the legislation.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that the Minister said that the Chamber will be able to debate this on 26 May, I ask when parents, who so badly need and want these certificates, will be able to obtain one. Will there be some sort of awareness campaign around obtaining a baby loss certificate?

Mr O'Dowd: I hope that we will have a scheme opened for applications around June. Certainly, I will look at options for raising awareness of it, although awareness has certainly been raised, given the debates that we have had in the Chamber, the growing media attention and the baby loss groups, who have been Trojans on the matter. However, if there is more that we can do, I will certainly take a look at it.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for the update on the timeline. It is very important that parents who want to access a baby loss certificate can do so. Can you confirm that the baby loss certificates will be available retrospectively, with no time limit on the years to be included, given that we have been contacted by parents who lost babies 20 years ago and more but who want the existence of their child to be acknowledged?

Mr O'Dowd: It is quite apt that we are discussing this on the day after Mother's Day. The loss felt by mothers and families who have lost babies in these circumstances is in their hearts forever. In the regulations that I bring forward, I will ensure that there is no time limit from the loss of the baby to the application for the certificate. A time limit was introduced in England, and it caused some anxiety. Whether that was a loophole, or however it might have occurred, that was corrected. From the outset, I will ensure that we get the regulations right.

Mr O'Dowd: I am committed to transforming the way in which public services are delivered, making it easier and more convenient for citizens and businesses whilst providing a more efficient and effective customer response.

While the Department of Finance does not have a remit for delivering digital transformation across Departments, each Department is responsible for managing its own digital transformation. DOF initiatives have included the following. My Department provides a central identity assurance service to support digitised government services that enable citizens to access a wide range of online services. Land and Property Services has launched a new online service, giving ratepayers greater control and convenience when managing their rates accounts. The Integr8 programme will transform how every civil servant, Civil Service supplier and job applicant engages with the finance and HR functions of the Civil Service and a number of our arm’s-length bodies. My Department is also embedding technology into recruitment and training, providing an online portal for NI Civil Service pension scheme members and automating sickness absence case management. The digital workplace programme has been put in place to provide a renewed, organisation-wide approach to information and records management. Finally, NISRA is adopting a digital-first approach by modernising surveys and the census, piloting modular online surveys and creating new, linked datasets to support better policymaking and services.

Those initiatives demonstrate how my Department is at the forefront of digital transformation.

Mr Harvey: Minister, as you move to increase digitisation of public services in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, what are you doing to ensure that public services and data belonging to members of the public in these systems are protected against cyberattack?

Mr O'Dowd: A robust system is in place. We have a team dedicated to protecting our systems from data attacks. I do not go into detail on it: I never have all the detail in front of me for security reasons, because it is, literally, trying to keep ahead, day by day, of those who try to attack our systems. However, we have a system in place to protect the public's data. That does not mean that we are not vulnerable to attack or that an attack might get through. It may well do, but our teams are dedicated and work diligently to protect our systems.

Mr Delargy: In this transformation, there is obviously a huge element of workforce planning. Two of the elements that I am interested in are: what skill sets do you plan for to enable this work, and how do you ensure that the right people will be in place to make sure that the digital transformation can happen over the coming years?

Mr O'Dowd: The job families framework is being finalised to provide a consistent way of defining roles across the Civil Service on the basis of the work that people do and the skills that are required rather than organisational boundaries. Defining job families strengthens workforce planning, supports clearer career pathways for staff and forms job architecture up to grade 8, which enables more targeted recruitment, learning in the workforce and analytics over time. The new professional framework will strengthen the professional leadership and standards as capability continues to mature.

Mr McNulty: Minister, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) recently found that only 5% of companies that invested in AI had a return on their investment. How confident are you that the Civil Service's use of AI will give value for money, and what steps have you taken to ensure that that is so?

Mr O'Dowd: It is important that we do not simply take a broad-brush approach and say that AI is the way forward and will save money. Each project has to be considered on its merits, be thoroughly investigated and go through a business case process to ensure that it will deliver value for money for the public purse.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Cathal Boylan is not in his seat for question 7. We move on to question 8.

Mr O'Dowd: To strengthen our case for fairer funding for public services, the Executive will work with the Treasury to review the Executive's spending and pressures. The open-book exercise will support a fuller understanding of the significant challenges that we face. Terms of reference have been agreed with the Treasury, and an information-gathering template was issued to the Departments, with returns due on 6 March 2026. All the departmental returns have been received and shared with the Treasury. The information collected will now be analysed and a report produced. It is intended that the exercise will be completed later this month, with the outcome of the process supporting the Executive's efforts to agree a multi-year Budget. The process will also inform future discussions with the Treasury about Budgets, fiscal events and the fiscal framework.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Minister expect the open-book exercise to include a review of the administration costs — many of which are significant — of the over 120 quangos that currently exist across Northern Ireland?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, it will. The information requested by the Treasury from my Department is wide-ranging and covers the expenditure of each Department, including that of its arm's-length bodies. However, discussing quangos is interesting. We have far too many arm's-length bodies, but, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of Ministers and, indeed, MLAs deciding which ones to cut, it often appears to be a case of circling the wagons.

Mr McHugh: Minister, what engagement has there been with the Treasury and the Departments on the open-book exercise?

Mr O'Dowd: There has been a wide-ranging engagement, and we are working at pace. We want to see the report completed later this month, in time for both a public consultation and reports from the Ministers. My report on the bilateral meetings with Ministers is complete, and it will all come together under the framework for the Executive to agree a Budget in time for the new financial year. The work has taken place at pace, and, as I said in my original answer, the information has been gathered and the template has been provided to all Departments. The templates have been returned, and the data is now being analysed.

Mr McMurray: Minister, can you outline any consequences that a Department will face if it does not balance its books? Will that affect us in coming years?

Mr O'Dowd: A Department that fails to balance its books for whatever reason causes an overspend on behalf of the Executive. Under the Treasury's rules, the overspend is taken off the next year's expenditure. It is then a matter for the Executive to decide how that is dealt with in the following year's Budget.

Mr O'Dowd: Question 11?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We are getting through them rightly.

Mr O'Dowd: We are, aren't we?

The removal of the 10% wear-and-tear allowance for childcare providers was first raised with me in January in correspondence that related specifically to the removal of that allowance for childminders with incomes of over £50,000 from April of this year. While affected childminders will still be able to claim tax relief on business expenses to levels over 10% where applicable, there is concern from the sector as to how the removal of the allowance might impact on some childminders and about the practicalities of implementing the new approach. My officials have previously raised these issues with HMRC. However, given the ongoing concerns, I asked for the matter to be escalated and for senior officials in my Department to raise the matter with their senior counterparts in HMRC. At a senior-level meeting on 4 March, my officials pressed HMRC on the importance of recognising and acting on concerns from the sector ahead of the proposed changes coming into effect. It is important that HMRC alleviates any impact on the sustainability of the sector. My Department has also liaised with the Department of Education on the matter, given its responsibilities for childcare provision. I understand that Education officials are monitoring any impact that the changes may have on childminder provision at a strategic level. My officials will continue to engage with the Department of Education and HMRC to understand how the sector’s concerns are being responded to.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he engaged with the Economy Minister on the need to assess how this tax change might affect the childcare sector and the many parents across Northern Ireland who have seen childcare costs increase or settings close? Will the Minister revise his proposal to impose a real-terms cut on the childcare allocation in his multi-year Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: The lead for childcare in the Executive is the Department of Education, hence we have engaged with that Department on this matter. As the Member will have noted, it has been raised at the highest level of HMRC. I have a meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (CST) on Thursday — that is an opportunity for a bilateral — at which I will raise the issue. There is no need to raise it with the Department for the Economy at this stage. I have set out Budget proposals under the framework within which I am operating. None of the Departments have received the funding that I would like them to receive. I have delivered what I believe is capable of being delivered at this stage, but the final decision on the Budget is a matter for the Executive.

Miss McAllister: Minister, constituents have already been in touch with many MLAs, both childminders and parents, who are concerned that the change will result in the sector increasing its fees so that it feels more sustainable. Have you discussed with HMRC the number of those who might be affected in Northern Ireland? If not, will you undertake to have that discussion with HMRC so that we have a true assessment of the number of people that it will affect?

Mr O'Dowd: It is worth reminding ourselves that affected childminders will still be able to claim tax relief on business expenses to levels over the 10% where applicable. However, there is concern in the sector. I recognise that, hence my officials have engaged with HMRC on this, the Department is monitoring it at strategic level and I will be engaging with CST about it on Thursday.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Diane, you have one minute and 30 seconds.

Mr O'Dowd: Apologies, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Do not worry about it; it happens to the best of us, John.

Mr O'Dowd: To strengthen our case for fairer funding for public services, the Executive will work with the Treasury to review the Executive’s spending and pressures. The open-book exercise will support a fuller understanding of the significant challenges that we face. Each Department will have a crucial role to play. This provides Departments, including the Department of Education, with an opportunity to detail to Treasury the financial pressures related to special educational needs services.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Diane, you have 30 seconds for a supplementary.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you. Minister, will the open-book exercise look at the sheer waste of public money? Answers to questions that I have asked the Health Minister indicate that £17 million has been given to the contractor of the maternity hospital because of delays. That is an inescapable and inexcusable waste of public money.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have five seconds.

Mr O'Dowd: As I have said to the Member before, I expect all Ministers to deliver public services efficiently and effectively.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I am afraid that, earlier, you said something that was quite remarkable: you said that neither economic inactivity nor energy costs were your responsibility or that of the Executive and that they were solely the responsibility of the British Government. I could not say more often that I agree with you that we want to see as much money as possible coming from the UK Government. I agree that the UK Government need to support the Executive, given the scale of the global oil shock. However, what I and others hear from you repeatedly is that everything is always somebody else's responsibility.

Mr O'Dowd: If the Member were to listen to what I say, instead of hearing what, he thinks, I said, the world would be a better place. At no stage have I said that energy or economic activity are not the responsibility of the Executive. I said that the local growth fund is the responsibility of the British Government, which it is. I said that energy costs are on such a scale that they are the responsibility of the British Government. That is what I said, and Hansard will reflect that.

We have spent the past number of weeks engaging with the British Government on their responsibilities to fund a scheme. As I said to you earlier, the best that you could come up with was a press release calling on the Executive to use their already hard-pressed money, which is required for the delivery of front-line public services, to bail out the British Government. That was your strategy.

Mr O'Toole: No, no.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, it was. That was your strategy. That strategy was rejected by me, the First Minister and the Economy Minister. We went straight to the British Government and engaged with them. They have come forward with a fund today that is completely inadequate. I have asked the Communities Minister to come forward with a scheme targeting, at this stage, those on the lowest incomes. I will continue to engage with the British Government on bringing forward a scheme and funding that will support all the hard-working families out there who face pressures because of the current energy crisis.

Mr O'Toole: People can look at Hansard and decide for themselves what you said. It is fairly clear that you have shifted responsibility elsewhere, as you repeatedly do with me in the Chamber. You are writing to the Communities Minister today: you, along with the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Economy Minister, could and should have sat down with the Communities Minister —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — a fortnight ago. Given that your party is accusing the Irish Government of sitting on their hands in relation to oil and energy cost supports, when — admitting that we want more money from the British Government, before you accuse me and gaslight people again — can we expect a plan from the Executive?

Mr O'Dowd: I listened to the Member on, I think, 'The View' on Thursday night, when he was challenged about saying that Sinn Féin always blames the British Government. The presenter said to him, "Well, the British Government have a responsibility", and he said, "Yes, they do". Just accept that they do. You do not need to be a spokesperson for the NIO.

Mr O'Toole: I do, Minister —.

Mr O'Dowd: You are a spokesperson for the NIO. In this instance, you should be part of a united front in the Executive and the Assembly to the British Government, so that the British Government are made to face up to their responsibilities. We have secured £17 million today, but our work is not finished.

Mr O'Dowd: I have written today to the Communities Minister, asking him to bring forward a scheme to support those on the lowest incomes at this stage. Given that, if the money is divided up, it is about £35 million across the half a million properties that currently use oil-fired central heating in this jurisdiction, the sensible thing at this stage is to target those on the lowest incomes. The person best placed to do that is the Communities Minister.

Mr Harvey: Minister, how quickly can the public expect that support to reach them?

Mr O'Dowd: I can assure you that, where needed, I will work with the Communities Minister to bring the scheme forward, but the Communities Minister must first bring proposals to the Executive and achieve Executive agreement on them. I think that that can be done quite quickly.

Mr O'Dowd: As yet, I have had no contact from the Communities Minister. As I said in response to the previous question, following the British Prime Minister's making the announcement, I contacted the Communities Minister to ask him to bring forward a scheme.

Ms Ennis: Minister, as you have said in your comments today, so many people here are struggling with the cost of home heating oil. Is the Minister wondering, as I am, why the Communities Minister is not here today to sit down with him and the rest of his Executive colleagues to figure out how he can best get that money out to the people who need it, rather than indulging himself in vanity projects in the USA?

Mr O'Dowd: As I understand it, the Communities Minister is currently in the United States, celebrating the removal of the British Empire from the States. He might come back, full of revolutionary fervour, and decide that he needs to have his own Boston Tea Party here. At the heart of all our difficulties are a Government that overtax us and refuse to properly fund us. If I am reflecting history correctly, that is what led to the events of the Boston Tea Party. All Ministers have a responsibility to prioritise citizens here and use their limited resources to best effect for all those citizens. While vanity projects may produce headlines for a short period, they do not make real and meaningful changes in people's lives.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. About the only allusion you did not make was one to Paul Revere, but I think that we all know the reason for that.

Mr Clarke: I can assure the Minister of one thing: whether it is a vanity project, as it was described, or otherwise, the Communities Minister's trip to America will not cost Northern Ireland 300 jobs, unlike the Economy Minister's previous trips.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question, Mr Clarke.

Mr O'Dowd: We do not know what the Communities Minister is going to cost us, because he is not home yet. We will work out that cost later.

The Member knows the answer to that question as well as I do. The £81 million is sitting with the Treasury, because it has not been allocated. There is a responsibility on the British Government to bring forward legislation, which I believe they are doing. The Economy Minister set out quite well at the Economy Committee this morning what role she and her Department will play when that legislation is being worked through. No one here will lose out as a result.

Mr Clarke: Regarding the Economy Minister's performance this morning, no one can be in any doubt that a lot of coaching was done at the weekend. In a previous response, Finance Minister, you said that you were awaiting a business case from the Economy Minister. Who was right: the Economy Minister or you?

Mr O'Dowd: As someone who has worked very closely with the Economy Minister for many years, I can assure you that she does not need any coaching.

The answer stands. Of course the Department will develop a business case in due course.

Mr O'Dowd: During my time and that of my predecessor, we have made a number of significant changes to public procurement. For instance, we have made it easier for schools to access contracts at a more local level and without going through the bureaucracy that they previously faced. We have changed the processes for the community and voluntary sector as well in order to reduce the bureaucracy and costs that it faces. I have presented a number of papers to the Executive, all of which have been agreed. I have raised the profile of public procurement in that fashion. The proper carrying out of public procurement is a very important exercise of government, but we have to look at every opportunity to remove costly bureaucracy.

Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.

How will simplified procurement procedures help to deliver small, local public-sector contracts in, for example, schools?

Mr O'Dowd: Schools are a good example of where public procurement had become very weighty because of paperwork and bureaucracy due to their having to seek various contracts etc. We have changed that. I am not sure that that has filtered down into the school network, because principals still approach me and say, "We had to jump through several hoops to get a door fixed, a banister fixed or painting works carried out in the school", and I say to them, "No, that should not be the case any more, because the rules have changed, and they have changed for your benefit". Schools do not have to go through the bureaucracy that they once did. I encourage the Education Authority (EA) and others to continually feed that information to our schools, because the changes remove bureaucracy and reduce the cost to them.

Mr O'Dowd: I have asked officials to prepare the groundwork in order to investigate legislative change on the matter. The Member and others have raised concerns with me several times about how constituents have been treated. I have asked for that process to begin. However, it is unlikely that we will be able to introduce legislative change in this mandate.

Mr Honeyford: There is real frustration about the length of time that this has taken: it has been ongoing for a while. I gave evidence to the panel at least a year ago, or maybe longer. People who live in houses in Lisburn Square and the Magheralave area of Lisburn are being held to ransom by property management companies. What advice should we pass on to them, given that they are effectively powerless in their own homes? Is there any way that we could see change more quickly?

Mr O'Dowd: This is a very complicated area of law, which is why it will take time. Legislation is a classic example of, "Act in haste, repent at leisure". We have to get it right and work our way through the different legislation. My advice to constituents is that they should engage with their solicitor and ensure that their contract is being fully upheld. I accept that that may not resolve their issues, but there is a legal contract between them and their property management company.

Mr O'Dowd: We await the court judgement. The Budget is in draft form only, but there are opportunities during monitoring rounds to transfer funds if there is further delay to the A5 project. I hope that there is not further delay to the A5 project.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate, Minister, that you are no longer directly responsible for the Department for Infrastructure, but you cannot totally wash your hands of the failure to deliver the A5 scheme. With well over £100 million spent to date and not an inch of tarmac to show for it, do you support efforts to review and amend unrealistic climate change legislation and targets that are blocking major infrastructure projects across Northern Ireland? Just last week, Justice McAlinden hit out at what he branded an "unfair", "unacceptable", "unprincipled" and "gaslighting" approach by both the Department for Infrastructure and DAERA to the project.

Mr O'Dowd: Rather than making personal comments, the judiciary should keep their comments to legal rulings. That is my view on that. The A5 case is under judicial review. I await the outcome of that judicial review. May I remind you and your colleagues that you voted for the Climate Change Act?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said earlier during Question Time, the public consultation has finished, and the open-book review is ongoing. After gathering that information, along with my report on my bilaterals with Ministers, the Executive will have to engage on how we set the final Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Time is up. Thank you very much, Minister and everyone else. Take your ease while we change the top Table and prepare to return to the Criminal Justice Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Emma Sheerin.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Sinn Féin supports the Sentencing Bill passing its Second Stage. We support the Bill, in principle, but we have reservations about specific elements of it, some of which have been touched on by other Members.

We need to focus on deterrence of crime, which needs a holistic approach from across government, and we need to look properly at the causes of crime. Research tells us that, often, the risk or fear of being caught is as effective a tool in preventing crime as longer sentencing. That is something that needs to be considered and will be discussed as the Bill makes its way through its Committee Stage. As others have done, I welcome the changes that have been made regarding dangerous-driving offences, particularly on aggravators in cases of murder, which is particularly relevant for victims' families, some of whom were represented here earlier.

We had concerns. I welcome the Minister's comments about wishing to include more hate crimes when introducing the regulations, which, she has stated, will not require legislation. I am glad to hear that, because there was a significant gap, particularly on sectarianism and having a proper definition of it. It is key that we consider that, particularly given the history of this country and the fact that sectarianism was used as a tool to divide people here. That is something that we need to be cognisant of.

The other massive gap is in regard to hate crime specific to misogyny. We talk, and others have talked at length, about the epidemic here of violence against women and girls. Femicide rates here are higher than they are anywhere else in Europe. We know that women are not murdered without misogyny, so we need to tackle that properly.

I note some of the comments that were made by the Chair of the Committee on non-criminal hate speech offences and hate crime offences. We have to consider all of that very carefully to maintain and protect free speech, but we also have to be cognisant of the fact that, as outlined by the Minister, people can commit multiple offences in the run-up to a murder, which, often, are displays of relevant hatred and discriminatory thoughts.

It is important that we give that the Bill the consideration that it deserves. It is particularly important that we look at the causes of crime. They can include poverty and addiction, and the people involved can be on the outskirts of society and oftentimes require support, sympathy, empathy and compassion. We should prioritise providing those things rather than looking at addressing crime through the judicial system all the time. I welcome the opportunity to do that as the Bill makes its way through the process.

Mr Bradley: I will speak generally to the Bill. The Democratic Unionist Party welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate of the Criminal Justice Bill. Public confidence in our justice system depends heavily on the credibility of sentencing. Victims and the wider public must be able to see that serious crime is met with appropriate and proportionate consequences. A number of elements in the Bill will command broad support across the Assembly.

In particular, the provisions commonly referred to as "Charlotte's law" represent an important recognition of the ongoing trauma experienced by families in cases where offenders refuse to disclose the location of a victim's remains. Ensuring that such behaviour is treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing is a welcome step in acknowledging the suffering of those families.

This year, 30 March will see the 25th anniversary of the death of 22-year-old Gill Bradley, a close cousin, much more like a niece, who was killed when a drunk driver crashed into her car. She was a beautiful girl who had just qualified as a teacher and was an only child. Her parents were denied seeing their daughter married and were also denied the pleasure of holding a treasured grandchild. Therefore, I welcome measures aimed at strengthening penalties for serious driving offences, and such measures will also be welcomed by many across Northern Ireland. Too many families have been devastated by dangerous and reckless behaviour on our roads, and it is right that the law reflects the gravity of those offences.

We also recognise the intention behind the creation of a specific offence relating to assaults on public workers. Violence or abuse directed at individuals who are simply carrying out their duties is unacceptable, and the law should provide appropriate protection.

However, as the Assembly considers the principles of the Bill, it is important that several issues are carefully examined as the legislation progresses. Sentencing reform must be considered alongside the practical realities of the justice system. Changes that increase sentences or create new offences will have implications for prison capacity and resources across the system. Perhaps now we will see progress on a new prison at Magilligan, which has been mooted since I came here in 2016 but has never materialised. In addition, whilst statutory sentencing principles may help to promote consistency, it is important that judicial discretion is preserved so that courts can continue to consider the individual circumstances of each case.

For those reasons, while the DUP is content for the Bill to proceed, the Committee Stage will be crucial. I and others on the Justice Committee will have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals in detail and hear evidence from victims' organisations, legal practitioners and others in the justice system. Our focus throughout the process will be on ensuring that the legislation delivers justice for victims, maintains public confidence and results in sentencing laws that are clear, workable and proportionate.

Mr McReynolds: I welcome this important Bill and do so as chair of the all-party group on road safety, the Alliance Party infrastructure spokesperson and a sitting member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

As the Justice Minister and the Chair of the Justice Committee have detailed, the Bill's importance cannot be overstated. The Bill covers a wide range of areas, and, today, I will focus on two areas that we can all agree on: road safety and the safety of those who serve the public. Despite our political differences, road safety is a cause that regularly unites the Chamber. Every Member here knows a family that has been affected. That shared understanding is why I regularly speak on the issue and why, as chair of the all-party group on road safety, I have made Chief Superintendent Sam Donaldson's attendance a core part of how our all-party group functions, bringing us face to face with the trends, the data and the "fatal five": carelessness, speeding, phone use, seat belts and drink- and drug-driving.

Last Christmas, the PSNI ran Operation Lifesaver, and it chose that time of the year because the holiday season, of all times, sees too many people willing to take a risk with substances that impair their driving. I also attended the launch of a dedicated drug-driving campaign at which the Infrastructure Minister spoke, because drug-driving is a growing threat that has no place on our roads. Driving under the influence is not a mistake; it is a choice, and a selfish one at that. It gambles with lives that are not yours to gamble with. Increasing the maximum sentence for causing death or harm while under the influence is so important, because it gives the maximum punishment that such an offence deserves. I welcome that, and for those who repeat such a dangerous and terrible offence, the Bill will also include provision for a possible life sentence, which, I believe, is entirely appropriate, because we simply cannot allow those willing to gamble with the lives of others to remain on our roads. I say that because behind every one of those cases is a family that did not choose to become campaigners. They were made campaigners through loss, and I pay tribute to the Dolan, Gallagher and McCarragher families for the persistence and courage that they have shown over the years.

I now turn my attention to another focus of the Bill: the new penalties for attacks on those performing public services. Our blue-light workers run towards the emergencies that the rest of us run from. When they are attacked, the harm does not end with them but with the next person who dials 999 and finds that there is one fewer officer or paramedic who is able to respond. We ask everything of these workers. The Bill seeks to reflect what we owe them in return. Additionally, the sentencing Bill extends to people who work in retail and hospitality. I think that we can all get fully behind that. The Bill sends a strong message that crime against anyone who works in a public service will not be tolerated. That should be welcomed by all in the Chamber. I hope that Members across the Chamber will join me in supporting the Bill, the changes that it proposes and the difference that it will make for everyone.

Mr McGuigan: While my colleagues have spoken to the totality of the Bill, I am going to speak exclusively on the issue of gambling addiction and how the progress of the Bill could affect that in a positive way. I speak today as chair of the all-party group on reducing harm related to gambling.

There is a very real link between gambling addiction and criminal offending. For some people, gambling harm does not just end with financial loss but can spiral into crime, such as fraud, theft and embezzlement, often committed out of desperation. Those crimes are not committed by hardened criminals but, very often, by ordinary people whose lives have unravelled as a result of addiction. If we are serious about building a justice system that prioritises rehabilitation and reduces offending, we have to be honest about the factors that lead people to the courts in the first place. The evidence on gambling addiction is pretty clear. Data from the Gambling Commission shows that around one in six people who are classified as suffering from gambling addiction say that they have committed a crime as a direct consequence of gambling.

In the North, the problem is particularly acute. Around 3% of adults meet the threshold for gambling addiction, and 14% of people who gamble say that they have bet more than they can afford to lose. Those statistics represent people and real consequences. We have seen cases locally where employees have stolen from their workplaces to cover gambling debts, believing that one more win will allow them to repay the money. We regularly read in the local papers of cases where individuals have accumulated large personal debts through online betting before resorting to fraud in a desperate attempt to keep up the repayments. Those are not isolated incidents. They are fast becoming an almost weekly occurrence in our local newspapers; examples of how addiction can push people into behaviour that they would previously never have contemplated.

Gambling companies are making enormous profits while deploying increasingly aggressive tactics to keep people gambling, including free bets, free spins, VIP schemes and loyalty programmes that are designed to reward the biggest spenders. These incentives are aimed not at the occasional gambler but at people who are already vulnerable. While gambling remains largely unregulated in the North, many people here are particularly exposed to those harms. I understand that this debate is not specifically gambling or addiction. It is important, however, that we interject the importance of how this Bill can help to alleviate, or at least take into account, gambling addiction. It is also important to point out that we have a lot more to do in the North to treat gambling addiction as a public health issue and to regulate and bring our laws up standard.

As gambling addiction escalates, people can, and will, become desperate. Research shows that individuals may resort to what is described as "financial misappropriation": taking loans that they believe that they can repay with winnings, borrowing beyond their means or committing offences in the hope that, as I have said, one last big win will solve everything. Of course, as we know, that never happens. Instead, the situation worsens. What we often see is that those people become first-time offenders — people who would never previously have imagined themselves appearing before a court. Our justice system is already seeing such consequences. In 2023, the Probation Board for the North reported that 4% of its caseload comprised people with a self-declared gambling problem.

More important, the board also believes that the true figure is likely to be higher. That should not be a surprise to anyone: gambling addiction carries enormous stigma, and people are often ashamed to admit it, even when it is the underlying cause of their offending behaviour.

Despite that, our justice system still does not properly recognise the role that gambling addiction can play. Currently, there is no requirement for gambling addiction to be included in pre-sentencing reports. Probation officers may refer someone to addiction services, but it is entirely optional. While sentencing guidelines can include consideration of mental illness as a mitigating factor, addiction, including gambling addiction, is not formally recognised in the same way. That means that, when judges and magistrates make decisions about sentencing, they may not have the full picture about why an offence occurred, and that is a missed opportunity.

Recognising addiction does not excuse criminal behaviour, but it helps us to respond to it more effectively. If we want to reduce reoffending, we must address the causes of crime, not just the symptoms. We have already seen the benefits of such an approach. Since 2018, the substance misuse court at Laganside has used therapeutic intervention and judicial supervision to support individuals who are struggling with drug and alcohol addiction. The aim is not simply punishment but recovery and rehabilitation. That approach has shown real promise. Why would we apply that kind of thinking to some addictions but not to gambling addiction?

There are practical steps that we can take. First, we should ensure that gambling addiction is routinely considered in pre-sentencing reports so that courts understand the full context of an offence. Secondly, we should recognise gambling addiction as a mitigating factor in sentencing guidelines in the way that other jurisdictions already do. Countries such as Canada already recognise problem gambling in sentencing decisions not to excuse offending but to better understand culpability and support rehabilitation. Those changes would not weaken our justice system; they would strengthen it.

The Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill presents an opportunity to shape how sentencing works in the years ahead, and the Minister's review of sentencing policy, which was launched in January, provides another important avenue to consider emerging issues such as gambling-related harm. I welcome the Minister's statement that the matters under review are not exhaustive, and I hope that this issue can be included in that work. If we ignore the connection between gambling, addiction and crime, we risk allowing the cycle of harm to continue.

I have two simple but important asks and steps for the Minister: to require the Probation Board to screen for gambling addiction in pre-sentencing reports and to ensure that gambling addiction is recognised in sentencing guidance as a mitigating factor. Taking those steps would help to ensure that our justice system responds not only to the offence itself but to the underlying harm that too often drives it. It would be a meaningful step towards a more effective, humane and rehabilitative justice system.

Ms Bradshaw: Before I make my remarks on the substance of the Bill, I acknowledge the collegial and positive nature of the debate, given the sensitive nature of the matters that it covers.

I speak not only as a member of the Alliance Party and an elected representative for South Belfast but as one of my party's spokespersons on Executive Office matters with particular reference to equality and race relations. Therefore, I will focus my remarks specifically on Part 6 of the Bill. I very much welcome Part 6, as it introduces provisions that will allow the courts to treat certain types of offending more seriously through the use of statutory aggravators in sentencing. That reflects one of the most important recommendations arising from Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime legislation.

The introduction of a hate crime aggravator is certainly a significant step when it comes to the way in which our justice system responds to crimes motivated by hostility, something that campaigners and my constituents will no doubt warmly welcome. Clause 33 will allow any offence to be treated as being aggravated by hostility, commonly referred to as "hate crime", where it was carried out with or motivated by hostility towards a person's race, religious background, sexual orientation or disability. In our increasingly diverse society, that is critical, if everyone is to be assured that we, as an Assembly, value that diversity and want to give them particular protection against unprovoked attacks.

Linked to that, clause 34 is also particularly important, as has already been stated. It requires the court to state openly how the presence of such aggravation has affected the sentence imposed. At the same time, it ensures that, even where the aggravating element cannot ultimately be proven, a conviction for the underlying offence can still be secured. That balance is important for ensuring fairness in the courts and accountability for offenders. On the latter point, I feel that that is needed by victims of crime if they are to get full acknowledgement from the courts of the crime that was perpetrated against them.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I acknowledge the point that she makes about the manner in which we are debating what are sensitive subjects today. The Member talks about hate crime. The good thing about the aggravation piece is that it will be established in a court of law whether the offence was perpetrated by hate and then aggravated. It is important to acknowledge that, sometimes, the victim may deem it to be a hate crime but it may not necessarily be one if there are multiple victims of all races.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for his intervention. I speak in the debate today from the perspective of a South Belfast representative, because there are so many attacks on vulnerable and marginalised people in my constituency. He is right that maybe not all the attacks are racially motivated, but there remains a deep sense of fear among people going about their everyday business. The provision is really welcome, as it will assure people that we recognise that they could be targeted because of their background or ethnicity.

I also welcome the recognition of intersectionality in the provisions and the ability to recognise hostility towards multiple protected groups in a single offence. That better reflects the lived reality of victims, as I have just said to Mr Frew, and acknowledges the complexity of many hate crimes.

The measures are not simply a technical change to sentencing practice; rather, they represent a strengthening of protections for many of the most vulnerable people in our society and should act as an important deterrent to those who would target others because of who they are. Ensuring that the gravity of the offence and the harm caused are fully recognised in sentencing is a crucial step towards reinforcing public confidence in our justice system.

We have all heard from victims of crime, particularly those who have been the target of racially motivated attacks, which, unfortunately, are happening at an increasing rate, not least in my South Belfast constituency. Until now, some of the victims have felt that the criminal justice system does not fully recognise the impact not just on them but on their family circle and their community of such attacks.

We must all recognise the harm, risk and vulnerability associated with hate crime. Racist graffiti on a wall can turn into families being intimidated out of their homes. It is about more than sentencing alone; it is about ensuring that our communities feel safe and that people across Northern Ireland can live free from intimidation and fear.

It is also important to acknowledge that there are discussions about expanding the list of protected groups. For example, transgender people are, by some measure, two to four times more likely to experience assault than the general population. The Bill, however, does not include them as a protected group. While it is important that the Bill progress through the Assembly in order for it to deliver the protections that it contains, it is nevertheless frustrating that agreement could not be reached on extending the protections further in the face of such clear evidence of vulnerability. My party believes —.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I initially drafted the Bill with transgender identity included, because I do not think that anybody in the Chamber would argue that, when it comes to being a victim of crime, somebody who is transgender should be any less well protected than a member of any other vulnerable group. Initially, that was agreed by three of the four parties in the Executive. Unfortunately, to date, we have not had agreement from the fourth party, which is why it is not included in the Bill as introduced.

I have not given up yet, however. It was made clear that the door is still open for more engagement, and, with Executive approval, we may be able to table an amendment that would address what the Member asks. That would be the ideal circumstance for that to happen. I provide reassurance for those who may have some concerns in that regard that there are no implications for the Supreme Court judgement or for any of the other factors that we have heard debated today. When it comes to hate crime, it is simply about individuals who are being attacked because of hostility towards them.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Justice Minister. The Chair of the Justice Committee pointed to that when he said that nobody should be targeted because of who they are. That is the fundamental point, and I hope that the Justice Committee will consider all targeted groups as part of its scrutiny process.

Another issue that has been raised, including in the Executive Office Committee's recent scrutiny, is the absence of age as a protected characteristic. We have been looking at gaps in equality legislation. We hope to pursue that and see some progress on it. It is important to recognise the developments that have taken place in that area since Judge Marrinan's review, in particular the vulnerability aggravator in the Adult Protection Bill, which may address many of the concerns relating to crimes against older people. It is important that we raise that in the context of this debate, but, we should, of course, also ensure that appropriate protections exist, while being mindful of not creating a duplication in law that could cause confusion rather than clarity.

Clause 36 is also significant in that regard, as it provides for increased sentences where an offender:

The court must explain how that vulnerability has affected sentencing, provided that it is not already an element of the offence itself. Again, I feel that victims will appreciate that explanation forming part of the case proceedings as a way of acknowledging what they have gone through. Importantly, the Bill provides a clear definition of vulnerability, including that of children and individuals whose ability to protect themselves from violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is significantly impaired. That approach also has a practical benefit, as it will enable the criminal justice system to more effectively record and track offences, including those against vulnerable victims; help to better identify patterns of offending; and ensure that resources are better targeted towards prevention and protection.

Part 6 of the Bill represents an important development: it will strengthen sentencing, improve the responsiveness of our legal system and provide greater protection for those who are most at risk of being targeted by crime. For those reasons, it is important that the Bill is allowed to progress today. Progressing the Bill will demonstrate that these institutions can act decisively to strengthen protections, support vulnerable people and deliver a justice system that better reflects the values of fairness and equality that we all share.

In closing, as a South Belfast representative, I acknowledge Peter and Niamh Dolan's loss of their precious son in my constituency. I think of that tragic event every time I pass the site. I sincerely hope that the provisions in the Bill that support the Dolans' campaign will give them some comfort today.

Ms Sugden: Sentencing is one of those issues that people feel strongly about. When a crime is committed and harm is caused, particularly where there has been a death or serious harm, one of the first questions that people ask is whether the sentence truly reflects what has happened to the victim and the victim's family. Often, that is what people mean when they say that they want justice for those who have been hurt by the crimes of others. When I was Minister of Justice, I spent a lot of time thinking about sentencing and how it works in practice. Sentencing serves several purposes: it is punishment; it is intended to act as a deterrent; and it should provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. Ultimately, however, the sentence imposed by the court should reflect the seriousness of the crime that has been committed and the harm that has been caused.

Sentencing cannot be looked at in isolation. Judges are not simply picking a number; they are working with a sentencing framework that has been set in law and shaped by case law over many years. When we, as legislators, look at sentencing, what we are really doing is adjusting that framework rather than deciding what the sentence should be in any individual case, and that is not always easy to explain. Often, we hear that the maximum sentence for a particular offence is a certain number of years, but, then, we see a significantly lower sentence imposed. People do not always see the process behind that decision. The court begins with a starting point; considers aggravating and mitigating factors; applies reductions where appropriate; and, ultimately, arrives at the final sentence. For many victims and families, that process can be difficult to understand, particularly when they are dealing with the loss that has been suffered and simply want justice for their loved one. That is why the framework that we set as part of the Bill matters. If the starting point is not high enough, the final sentence, even after adjustments, can appear and feel insufficient.

That was one of the reasons why I initiated the review of sentencing policy in Northern Ireland in 2016. At that time, there had not been a comprehensive examination of sentencing policy for many years. Concerns were being raised by victims' families, by legal practitioners and by the public more generally about whether the system was delivering outcomes that truly reflected the seriousness of certain offences.

The review was also influenced by individual cases that deeply resonated with people, and one of those was the death of Enda Dolan and the campaigning of his father, Peter Dolan. In that case, a young life was lost because someone made the choice to engage in dangerous and illegal behaviour on the road. The consequences of that decision were devastating and irreversible, and that is what made the sentence that was imposed in that case so difficult to understand. The sentencing review could never change what happened to Enda Dolan or undo the devastating loss experienced by his family, but it sought to ensure that, where such crimes occur, families are not left feeling that the justice system has failed to hold people properly accountable for their actions. Peter Dolan and his family have shown enormous courage in continuing to campaign on this issue while carrying their own loss. Their determination helped to bring about a wider examination of sentencing in Northern Ireland, and it is only right that their contribution is recognised. The Bill reflects some of that work, and I welcome that.

It also includes provisions to deal with a situation where offenders refuse to disclose the location of victims' remains, and, in Northern Ireland, that issue is painfully associated with the case of Lisa Dorrian. For families who are left without answers in those circumstances, the impact is profound and enduring. Lisa's family have lived with that pain for many years. The refusal to disclose the location of a victim's remains prolongs the suffering of families in a way that is difficult to comprehend. While the justice system cannot undo that harm, it can recognise the additional cruelty involved when offenders choose to withhold information. I know how hard Lisa's family have worked on this issue over many years, and it is right that their determination is also recognised in how measures are now being introduced.

The Bill also creates a specific offence of assaulting a public worker, and I very much welcome that. Too many people who provide services to the public experience abuse of violence simply for doing their job. Healthcare workers, transport staff, retail workers and many others can find themselves on the receiving end of behaviour that should never be considered acceptable. Public workers should be able to do their jobs without facing intimidation or violence, and it is right that the law reflects the seriousness of that conduct.

Taken together, the provisions in the Bill represent a meaningful attempt to respond to concerns that have been raised over many years about aspects of the justice system and the way that sentencing operates. It is important to acknowledge that it has taken a long time to reach this point. The review of sentencing policy began a decade ago, and reform in this area should not take that long. The reality is that political instability has slowed progress on many issues across government, including this one. Nevertheless, it is positive to see these reforms now coming forward. Sentencing is too important an issue to ignore. The framework must continue to evolve to ensure that it reflects the seriousness of offences and maintains public confidence in the justice system. For those reasons, I am supporting the Bill through its Second Stage.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the progress of the Bill and to the wider, vital conversations that this process has sparked on sentencing practices across the North. The sentences themselves often spark the conversations, but the Bill should focus them on solutions and improvements.

I fully acknowledge that the judiciary is tasked with handling complex cases, weighing multiple factors when passing a sentence and doing so within what is often a challenging and tightly constrained legal framework. However, that should not prevent us from asking difficult questions about whether the system, as it stands, is delivering the justice that victims and communities deserve. At the heart of the Bill is a recognition that sentencing must do more than simply process and punish offenders. It must protect the public and hold their confidence. Crucially, it must act as a real deterrent. Too often when sentences are reported, particularly in the court pages across social media, the reaction from the public is, understandably, one of anger and disbelief, with many feeling that serious crimes have resulted in little more than a slap on the wrist.

One area where that concern is most palpable in my experience is drug dealing, and I have raised the issue with the Minister previously. Across communities, in my constituency and beyond, families are living with the devastation caused by drugs. Drug dealers are not just criminals looking to make money; they are, frankly, death dealers. They poison communities, exploit vulnerability, fuel addiction, destroy lives and wreak devastation that filters through generations. Yet, far too often, when those responsible end up appearing before the courts, they receive suspended sentences, and, as we have seen increasingly over the years, some are even given anonymity orders and thus granted protection in the midst of their crimes. They return to the same streets and communities, they peddle the same poison and the cycle continues.

The maximum sentence here for drug dealing is already 14 years. The law provides the courts with the power to impose serious penalties, but the reality is that such sentences are rarely, if ever, imposed. Perhaps it is time for us to examine whether there should be a higher minimum sentence for serious drug dealing.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that the lightness of such sentences and, indeed, the anonymity afforded to some people in court feed the narrative that, in fact, they are some sort of agents for the police?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. There is all sorts of suspicion and speculation around the reason why punishment is not more severe in many cases, and more than eyebrows are raised at the apparent leniency of many of the sentences received. I am sure that that is across the whole range of offences, but I have certainly heard people make the suggestions that the Member referred to just now.

I was making a point about minimum sentences. People maybe should consider that issue, not because we seek punishment for its own sake but because communities deserve protection and because the message must be clear that dealing drugs and destroying lives will carry serious consequences. In that context, I pay tribute to campaigner Pauline Duddy, a Derry mother who has turned unimaginable personal grief into determined — that may be an understatement — advocacy following the tragic death of her daughter Jasmin. Through her campaign for Jasmin's law, Pauline has highlighted the devastating human cost of drug dealing. I acknowledge the engagement that the Minister and others across the Chamber have had with Pauline over the past couple of years. Her campaign reminds us that behind every statistic, court case and line of legislation there are real families whose lives are shattered. Their voices very much deserve to be heard in the debate.

The Bill addresses another area, which Members have touched on, in which many families have long felt that the justice system has failed them, and that is road deaths and serious injuries caused by dangerous or reckless driving. For families who lose a loved one in those circumstances, their grief is compounded by sentences that, it is fair to say, in nearly all cases do not reflect the gravity of the loss.

When someone makes the choice to drive dangerously or to drive when under the influence of drink or drugs, they make a decision that puts every other road user at risk. Sadly, the consequence of that choice often ends up being tragic, but it is also entirely preventable. That is why stronger sentencing provisions in the Bill are not solely about punishment or time that reflects the crime. They are about real deterrence. They are about sending a clear message that such reckless behaviour will carry serious consequences. I commend, as other Members have, the work done by bereaved families to push for change. The Dolan family is here today. They tragically lost their son, Enda. In my constituency, I think of Martin Gallagher's family — Peter McReynolds mentioned them too — who have been tireless in their pursuit of justice, not just for Martin or for themselves, but for everyone.

This is not just about calling for tougher sentences across the board. It is about ensuring that justice truly means justice: the chance to break the cycle of reoffending and to rebuild lives. Behind every court case is more than one story, and they often do not make the front pages but they matter just as much. Someone who needed help but got a sentence instead, perhaps. I think of the comments of Mr McGuigan, which I thought were excellent, on the link between addiction, crime and punishment. Justice must protect the public, but it must also protect the vulnerable. This is exactly the kind of sentencing reform that we need.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask the Minister of Justice to conclude and wind up the debate.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This debate has been an excellent one, and I thank all the Members who participated. I hope that I will be able to touch on most of the issues that you have raised. If I do not do that today, please come back to me, because there will be opportunities for us to engage as we go forward.

Progressing this legislation to improve the effectiveness and the operation of the justice system, particularly as it relates to sentencing, is a priority. It has taken too long to get to this point. A number of Members have mentioned the 10 years that it has taken. Claire Sugden mentioned that, 10 years ago, she originally launched the review of sentencing that has led to many of the things that we have brought forward today. It should not take us 10 years, but we only had five when we were actually here to do the job. What we can do collectively is ensure that this place runs more effectively and more efficiently so that we can do more of the stuff that is impactful. We have seen today how much this impacts on people in our community and how it affects people's lives. What we do here is not just theatre and pantomime: it has to be important, and legislation is where the rubber hits the road. I think that it has taken too long to get to this point, but I am glad that we are now here. As I have said, I thank all Members for their very constructive and positive engagement on the Bill. As it goes through the various stages in the Assembly, I hope that we can continue in that spirit and ensure that an important piece of legislation reaches the statute book as soon as possible and starts delivering for those who enter the justice system across Northern Ireland.

Many of you are supportive of the provisions of the Bill as introduced, and some of you have ambitions to change some of those provisions. I will get to that somewhat later. I turn to some of the issues that were raised during the debate. Paul Frew raised quite a number of issues, as you would anticipate that he would, as Chair of the Committee. One of the things that he mentioned in passing was the use of victim statements and how that would be incorporated. We initially thought that we might need legislation, or at least changes to court rules, to allow that to happen. We now know that that is not the case. It is also not the case for the Parole Commissioners. We have seen over recent years, as campaigners have spoken out on this, that more and more victims have had the opportunity to read their statement into the record in the courts or at a parole hearing. That is not a trivial matter. Of course, they could always do it on paper, but there is a perception amongst victims that, at the point where conviction happens, the process moves on and their loved one or their loss becomes almost inconsequential, and all the focus is on the perpetrator and how to deal with that person in sentencing — what are their good points, bad points and rehabilitation opportunities and other things. By allowing victims' families and victims themselves to put in a statement at that point and to be heard is vital in re-injecting their loss, pain and trauma into the process so that it is fully and adequately considered. It is also, for many, the only chance that they will get to have their voice heard in the courtroom. Where defendants, for example, plead guilty before a trial, victims will never get the chance to talk about what happened to them. It is their one chance to have their voice. As Members have rightly said, it is not just about justice being done: it is about justice being seen to be done. When we are dealing with trauma and we become trauma-informed, we learn that people do not end up as victims because they choose to be.

They end up as victims because of other people’s decisions, and it is important that they have some agency over what happens in the case at that point.

A number of other issues were raised, particularly around age, sectarianism and the phase 2 consultation. Transgender issues were raised by a number of Members. I will come to that, because we need to look more closely at the aggravating model on that. However, I highlight the review of sentencing, which is happening in parallel with the Bill. There is no single Bill that we can bring to the House that will deal with everything; it is impossible. I was heavily criticised for trying to do just that. With my first Justice Bill, I took a lot of heat for wanting to add things from some of the Members who are now ambitious to add to this Bill. I am like everyone else: the fear that this place may not be restored immediately after the next election, that there could be delay or hesitation and that we might not be able to make more progress drives us all to try to pack everything that we can into the only vehicle available. It is not necessarily good practice, and it is right that we should take time to do the policy development. That is why I have decided to implement the review of sentencing in parallel, so that we can pick up the issues that we do not have the policy development or the evidence base to legislate for in the Bill but that we know are important to Members and the community. We can start the work to develop policy in that space, because this will not, by any means, be the last sentencing Bill that comes to the House from the Department of Justice.

In that context, the Member raised Harper's law. I met his colleague Phillip Brett, because he had campaigned on that issue. My understanding is that, as yet, Harper's law has not been used in England and Wales, so its impact may not be as significant. I would like to look at Harper's law as part of the sentencing review. I will consider the difference between Charlotte's law and Helen's law. There was a clamour in the previous mandate for us to introduce Helen's law, which was to say that the Parole Commissioners should have due consideration of the fact that a murderer had withheld the location of the body in a no-body murder case. That was it: that was all that Helen's law did. Instead, by working with the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian over a sustained period, we have come up with a better and more fit-for-purpose solution. While the Parole Commissioners will have to give due regard to that, it could be 20 years after the death of the person, and that is a long time to wait for vital information. Therefore, we have looked at a sliding scale of benefit. If a person admits to the crime when they are arrested and says where the body is, that is the ideal. If they say it when they are charged formally or arraigned in court, that is different. If they say it during sentencing, there should be some reward for that. They may say it immediately after sentencing. Here is the thing: some people do not realise the impact of the sentence until the first night when the door clicks closed in prison, and those first few weeks can be the point when the person reflects on what they have done. They have been found guilty and sentenced, and they now realise that this will be their life for the foreseeable future. That is another learning opportunity, and somebody can come forward even then to allow their sentence to be reviewed in light of giving up that information. By the time that the case gets to the Parole Commissioners, that should be the last stop. You want to do as much as you can up front to get the information as soon as you can. I argue that, as with Helen's law and what will be Charlotte's law here, we need to look at Harper's law to see what we can do to achieve those objectives in a way that is fit for purpose in Northern Ireland, and I would like to do that as part of the review.

The issue of suspended sentences was raised. We are not changing the current arrangements for suspended sentences or the sentences that they can apply to, but we are strengthening how they work. At the moment, the structure for when somebody's sentence can be suspended is already set out in law. We do not intend to change that in the Bill. However, we have learned from, for example, community-based sentencing and the work of the probation service and others that working with somebody can be transformative. Earlier, we talked about problem-solving courts such as the substance misuse courts. Suspending sentencing until somebody has gone through a period of treatment can have an impact on encouraging desistance from reoffending. For us, it is about whether we can put measures in place as part of a suspended sentence, which normally does not happen. Normally, the person's sentence is suspended, and, if they do not reoffend in the suspended period, it falls away. It is counted as a custodial sentence for firearms appeals and other things, but people do not have to serve time in prison. Would it not be better if we were to engage that person in rehabilitation during the suspension period so that we could support their rehabilitation and assist them to move away from offending? That is the purpose behind what we are trying to do.

I will give Members the statistics on that. About 18% of sentences for adult disposals in the courts in Northern Ireland have been suspended. The vast majority were in the Magistrates' Court, which is to be expected, given that the cases heard there tend to be of a less serious nature. There were a higher number of summary convictions in that court compared with the Crown Court, where there were only about 1,500 convictions. Over the same period, about 3,450 immediate custodial sentences were imposed across all courts, including the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court.

It is not that we want to overuse suspended sentences, but they may be a way forward. Philip helpfully set out how it is not just victims but perpetrators who can be vulnerable. People who break the law have their own vulnerabilities. Fraud, for example, carries a serious sentence. If suspending that sentence in order to allow somebody to get treatment, rehabilitation and support means that they do not offend again, that is a better outcome for society than locking them up for a prolonged period. If we can change people's behaviours in that context —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for giving way and for the clarification in her speech. The suspended sentence order that she talked about comes with a community requirement, and with that comes the unpaid work requirement, which could be an option for a court. Will the Minister outline what the unpaid work requirement would entail?

Mrs Long: It will vary from place to place and from person to person, but, if Members consider what happens with probation, for example, they will know that people volunteer in various community and voluntary organisations. Many do work in the community where their behaviours have caused harm and are therefore able to give something back. Reparation is part of the purpose of sentencing. Communities often feel better if they see somebody who has done harm in their community putting something back into it.

I am sure that most Members are aware of this, but, as an MLA, I have contacted the Probation Board to say that there is a piece of ground or another area, perhaps where the residents are elderly, that has fallen into disrepair and become overgrown. Those guys will go in and give a real service. When residents find out that they are there on probation, they find it encouraging that people who have made a mistake in their life are out there giving something back. That is, in many ways, a much more visible form of justice, as people can see that something has been fixed because people have given something back proportionate to what they took from society. That is really important.

A number of Members, including Doug Beattie, asked why we do not extend the review of undue leniency to the Magistrates' Court. Part of the reason is that the sentences available in the Magistrates' Court are much lower. The majority of sentences in that court are of six months maximum. A number are of a year, and, by exception, some are of two years. Given the cost involved and the time taken to appeal, the sentence would probably have been served, if it had not already been served on remand, so it would be a pyrrhic victory to say that a month should be added to it. The person might still be "time served" at the end of the process because they have waited longer than six months to get to court. It is about striking a balance. What we have done, however, which I hope will provide those who have concerns in that space with some reassurance, is to make provision for the review to apply to sentences imposed on summary trial for offences that we can describe in regulations. That would kick in if we were to decide to increase the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court. If its sentencing remit were increased, that would allow us to list the sentences that could be appealed for undue leniency.

As I said, I will come back to the aggravator model in a while. The Member said that the court would decide. There are a number of phases. First, the PSNI would have to decide that there was a reason to consider it as a hate crime and do the investigation, as you would expect. The Public Prosecution Service would need to decide to try it as a hate crime in the first instance, and the courts would then have to decide whether the hate motive was made out in the court. The benefit, however, is significant. First, you could record the level of those crimes, which is important because, often, the difference between hate incidents and hate crimes and so on becomes very blurred. That would allow us to have a really good measure of where the problems lie. It would also allow the prosecution of the original offence. If it were assault but the hate motive assumed or inferred could not be proven, you could still be charged with common assault, for example. It means that somebody will still be punished. If we created a suite of new offences, the risk would be that, if you could not make out the hate crime motivation, the case would fall completely. That would lead to even more frustration for those who are vulnerable. Crucially, it would also allow us to take account of motivation in sentencing and rehabilitation. If somebody were to come to us with a common assault, our approach would be different from our approach to a racially motivated or disability motivated hate crime, and the targeted interventions that we would want to make would be different.

Members have spoken at length about the issue of aggravation by hostility. Rather than jumping around, I will stick with that. The current enhanced sentencing model has not really proved to be effective or easy to apply. I do not think that it really works in the interests of defendants or victims of hate crime. We are trying to allow any criminal offence to be chargeable as being aggravated by hostility where the victim belongs to a racial, religious, sexual orientation or disability group. It requires the court to explain how the fact that the offence is aggravated affects the sentence imposed, and, where that aggravation is not proven, as I said, a conviction for the basic offence will still be available. The consequence is that you would be able to record the motivation, which should help us to be more effective in rehabilitation. The benefit of doing that is that we could start to tackle the attitudes that underpin and enable hate crime. I hope that that will modernise the law in a way that will strengthen protections for the most vulnerable, provide the deterrent that we wish to provide to offenders and ensure that sentences reflect the gravity of the offence and the harm that hate crime incidents cause to not only the victim but the wider community. By reducing the harm, risk and vulnerability associated with hate crime, whether that is racist graffiti, attacks on the homes of newcomer communities or the intimidation of families in new developments, the purpose is to make communities feel safer and enhance public safety.

A number of Members raised the issue of transgender identity. Of course, the need for provisions was well documented in the findings of Judge Marrinan's public consultation and the 10 years' worth of evidence that the PSNI shared, showing that transgender people are victims of hate crime and, sadly, increasingly so. This is the only part of these islands where there are no specific protections for transgender people. I do not think that that is a uniqueness that any of us wishes to continue. I sought the agreement of colleagues to add transgender to the list of protected groups, and, on the basis of what, I thought, was consensus, I did so. Unfortunately, that was not the case, and I had to remove it from the Bill. I was disappointed to have to remove it. When it comes to hate crime, you have to include those who are most vulnerable, and transgender people are incredibly vulnerable at this time. However, I did not want other victims of hate crime to be disadvantaged further by delays to the legislation. I am still open to providing whatever reassurance is required to allow the inclusion of transgender as a protected characteristic in the Bill or via secondary legislation, for which we have also made provision. It will be useful to engage with the Committee, as I will with the Executive, in order to try to resolve the issue in a way that, hopefully, will protect those who are most vulnerable.

On the issue of age, the Department originally intended to make provision to deal with attacks on older people. Through the process of consultation, however, it was established that it was not old age itself but vulnerability that was people's key concern. As well as placing in statute the need to protect the most vulnerable, the clause on vulnerability allows the criminal justice system to record the incidence of that type of offending, which will enable us to identify whether resource needs to be directed to preventing and dealing with that.

A final decision will be taken on whether age should be included, once we have finished the phase 2 consultation to which I referred. There was not capacity to include a number of pieces of Judge Marrinan's work in the phase 1 consultation, and we have not had the capacity to do the phase 2 consultation, as yet. As Paula Bradshaw mentioned, there has been significant progress on strengthening protections for older people and vulnerable people since Marrinan's review. The vulnerability aggravator clause in the Bill and the Department of Health's Adult Protection Bill both contain provisions that may address some issues of crime against older people. I am open to considering the need for hate crime protections for older people, but I do not want to have duplication, with different offences creating a complex landscape that ends up with nobody using the provisions that are already there.

The other issue was about sex or gender being protected characteristics in the Bill. Further policy work is needed in that area, continuing the assessment of the suitability of the inclusion of either "sex" or "gender" as a protected characteristic in hate crime legislation. That will also be part of the phase 2 public consultation, because, in this society, we rightly recognise that there are real issues around not just sexism or chauvinism — that is not to diminish the impact that they have — but actual misogyny, whereby women are treated, as we see, not just with disrespect but in ways that make them fear for their safety. It is important that we take that seriously. As was rightly noted by both Aoife Finnegan and Emma Sheerin, it is important that any future policy decisions on that are considered within the TEO-led framework on the ending violence against women and girls strategy. I want to engage with TEO on that.

Equally, the issue of sectarianism has been raised. Tackling sectarianism is an issue that is close to my heart. We need to do further work on sectarianism in the consultation phase, but we found that Scotland was the only region with a legal definition of sectarianism, and that has now been all but overturned. We all know what sectarianism is: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the chances are that it is a duck. It is harder to define that in law, however, and I do not want to simply leave it to the courts to decide what sectarianism is. As politicians, we need to show leadership in that area and to have an agreed definition of sectarianism before we start to legislate for it as an aggravator.

Another issue that was raised was assaults on public workers. I understand the reason for the concern that those clauses may be too wide, but, sadly, as many Members said, we see front-line workers in all sorts of work areas affected by that. MPs have been murdered. We all have locks on our constituency office doors that we did not have 10 years ago. That pains me, because I want to have an open-door policy so that people can simply walk in off the street and ask for help. It has become too normal for violence to be accepted. It is not acceptable that people are beaten up in their shops at night when they are there to try to protect and deliver for the community. People are being assaulted. Bus drivers tell us about being pulled out of their bus seat and punched in the head when they are driving a bus to get people from A to B. I do not want to create a system in which those who deliver a public service or carry out a public duty are disallowed from using the legislation, but, rather than produce a narrow list and find that we have missed someone out, it is better to create the context and allow the courts and the PPS to decide whether it is appropriate in each individual circumstance.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. It is important, and I agree with the concept that all public workers should be protected with that broad brush in law. There is a danger, however, of that broad-brush approach diminishing the actual offence. Is the Minister open to having a sliding scale for assaults on people working in public services, such as blue-light services, with that being an aggravating factor, or tougher sentences? Barristers and solicitors are talking about a statutory presumption against suspended sentences. Is that something that the Minister would consider with regard to a sliding scale for assaults on public workers?

Mrs Long: There are a couple of things. The Member, rightly, said that, even under his legislative changes that were made in 2016, there were people who missed out, such as ED staff. Receptionists in a doctor's surgery often take the brunt of abuse, not the GP. They do not save lives, but they are part of the process that does. I think of people who work in the Prison Service, such as custody nurses, probation officers and solicitors who are meeting their clients. They all provide essential services. I am not particularly comfortable with the idea of a sliding scale, although I am willing to explore it with the Member. I completely accept that those who do emergency work, who are there to save lives and who are hampered by attacks are in a particular category, but that would be taken into account by the judge in sentencing anyway. The issue is about saying that, if you are providing a public service to some degree or other, that is an aggravating factor. The degree to which it is an aggravator is something that the courts can look at.

The other issue that the Chair raised — trust me, I will not go through every Member's comments in this level of detail or we will be here until tomorrow — was road traffic offences. I put on record that it is unusual for the Department of Justice to legislate in that space. It is normally the Department for Infrastructure that does so. Therefore, if Members have any new or novel amendments to make in that space, I ask them, first, to reconsider them and, secondly and more importantly, in their consideration, to engage with the Minister for Infrastructure, because I had to get cross-cutting approval for what we have, and it works with what Minister Kimmins is doing. I do not want us to go off-piste and end up doing something that could be dangerous or difficult in that context.

I will move on. Patsy reflected on the delays and dysfunction, and he is absolutely right. I hope that what I said about age, transgender, sex, gender and misogyny has given him some reassurance, and that what I said in response to the issues that he and Doug raised about unduly lenient sentencing in the Magistrates' Court has given them some reassurance that we are aware of those issues and take them seriously. Of course, if we decide to further expand the Magistrates' Court, we will look at whether we need to extend the undue leniency provisions. There is the opportunity for us to do that in one of the clauses.

The next issue that Patsy raised was Caoimhe's law. Caoimhe's law is not in the Bill. It was brought to us recently by families who are campaigning. There are a number of issues. First, it cuts across the responsibilities of several Departments. It involves not just the Department of Justice but quite a few others, including Health and Infrastructure, as well as the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has responsibility for digital policy, so it has a lot of control over what can and cannot be put up. It is a cross-departmental issue. I have said that the issue would fit better in the victims and witnesses of crime Bill that is about to be introduced in the spring and that, if Committee members are minded to bring forward an amendment, the Department can assist with that. However, we as a Department simply would not have the time or the capacity to do it. We would have to go to full consultation and go through a series of processes that, to be honest, we could not navigate with the resources available to us. However, if the Committee is minded to do something, it would probably fall within the scope of the victims and witnesses of crime Bill. My officials will be more than happy to guide and assist where they can.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much for giving way, Minister. Given, as you outlined, the wide range of other statutory bodies that would need to be involved, and given that they may have legal duties under such a law, would that not narrow the confines of the spread of any amendment that might be introduced?

Mrs Long: It would. This is one of the conversations that we need to have: do we want to do this quickly, or do we want to do it completely? This is about victims of road accidents. I understand the passion that people have around that, but there are other circumstances. When my father died, he dropped dead on the street. People were working on him outside on the street. I will never forget going to the front door, as a 10-year-old child, and not realising that it was him, but seeing him lying there being worked on. I do not know how I would have reacted if that had been photographed and spread over the internet. That is something that I did not have to deal with. It is still burned in my mind, but it is something that most people will not see. So I am worried that, by focusing solely on road traffic accidents, we will miss other incidents, such as somebody getting medical treatment on the street, for example, or somebody who has overdosed. This is about the dignity and safety of individuals — those who are in crisis on the street and those who are receiving treatment in the public domain.

We could do something around Caoimhe's law and keep it narrow, but, at some point, we will have to come back to this and look at whether a wider piece of work needs to be done. If the Committee was going to do it, it would have to be kept quite narrow in order for it to be well defined. We would assist with whatever conversations needed to happen with the other Departments, but we need to think through the consequences, because this is the tip of a big iceberg where people's personal privacy and dignity are being intruded upon all the time on social media and other platforms. It causes real distress to families and to people who are given assistance by the roadside or on the street. It is something that we need to think of. I am happy to engage —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for giving way. In principle, every Member will want to see Caoimhe's law enacted. The Minister gives all those reasons why the Department cannot do Caoimhe's law. How does she expect a Committee with five members of staff to do all that work that she says that the Department cannot do? Is there a danger — something that will be a nightmarish scenario for the Minister and even for the House, maybe — that if the Department does not do it and the Committee does not do it, an MLA will, and it will be a private Member's amendment?

Mrs Long: That is another possibility, and Members may want to look to that. At the end of the day, I cannot prescribe what happens. I hope that the Member understands this — he has seen the draft Budget and the impact of the Budget. He talks about the Committee only having five members of staff. Of course, the Department has more than five, but not in this area of work. The officials who I see on this Bill are the same officials I see for all the other Bills. People have lost a sense of connection with how small the core part of DOJ is. A lot of the staff from our overall numbers are deployed on the front line — in prisons, policing and other areas. If you look at who we have to do this work, you will see that we are talking about very small teams of dedicated people. We would not have the capacity to do it, and I do not believe that the Office of the Legislative Counsel would be able to do it either, given the amount of pressure that is building on it from Executive colleagues progressing more legislation. I agree that there is a risk that this is done, or done badly, at haste rather than in detail. I am willing to engage with the Committee. If there is a way that we can do something in this space, or create an opportunity to do something by regulation, such as putting an enabling power in place, I will be happy to have those conversations. I do not want to shut it down, because I recognise that this is an emotive issue for the families involved, but I know that in order to find the resource to do this, we would have to stop other significant pieces of work that I cannot stop. However, I am happy insofar as we have the capacity to lean in and try to be of assistance where we can.

I welcome what Connie said, particularly about recognising that the Bill will not be the be-all and end-all when it comes to sentencing. It is the start of a process of change, and further sentencing provisions will be introduced in due course. I do not want perfect to become the enemy of the good. It is more important that we get this done, and done right, than that we get everything that we could possibly throw at it squeezed in. That is important.

Doug also raised, as I anticipated he would before he had even spoken, the sentencing council. I know that he is passionate about that, and I understand why. As you know, there is the Sentencing Council for England and Wales and a similar model in Scotland. Given that there was division and not full agreement the last time on a sentencing council, we decided to put that into the sentencing review. We want to look at it again and ask whether it would need to be like the Sentencing Council for England and Wales or whether, short of that, we can do something else that will still give the kind of transparency and accountability that people are seeking. The advantage of a sentencing council is that the definitive guidelines that it can put forward in relation to certain categories of offence means that you can get consistency and uniformity — mostly — across the courts, and it reflects the fact that that jurisdiction is very large. All our judges pretty much spend most of their day under a single roof, so striving for consistency ought to be simpler in a smaller jurisdiction and perhaps would not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I mentioned cost, so I want to refer to the findings of the review. In the business plan for 2024-25 for the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, staff costs were £1·65 million and non-staff costs were £250,000. The Scottish Sentencing Council has cost £4·6 million over the last 10 years, and the allocation was £1·025 million in 2024-25. There would be considerable exposure for the Department when it comes to funding a sentencing council, so, given that we have nothing set aside for that in the current Budget cycle, it would be better, before we make decisions, to take the time afforded to us to bottom out exactly what we want a sentencing council to do, how we want it to work and what resources we will be able to put into it.

The other issue that Doug raised, which, again, I predicted — I am not suggesting that you are always predictable, Doug — was early guilty pleas. I completely agree with you on that one. I feel hugely frustrated about that, as, I think, a lot of members of the public do. It needs to be much clearer for defendants and victims how early guilty pleas work. At the moment, whilst, in theory, judges have total discretion as to whether or not they can give any credit for an early guilty plea, the maximum credit is about 33%. The minimum credit is between 20% and 25%, and that was based on a court decision in R v Coyle. There is not a huge difference between 33% and 25%, so there is not much of an incentive for somebody to come forward. That is one aspect of this where, I think, we need a reset. The other area that we need to reset is this: what is "early"? Is it early in the court system or early in the journey through the whole justice system? If somebody pleads guilty immediately on arrest or on charge and says, "Yes, I did it", that saves a multitude of pain for victims and witnesses. It also saves a fortune when it comes to the detail of the case that needs to be built for that person to go through court and be convicted and sent to prison. If they do not plead until arraignment, they can still save the victims a lot of stress. However, they can also cause the victims a lot of stress. If it has taken you three or four years to get to court and you have had to steel yourself throughout that time to be in court, and the person who has abused you in the past then whips the rug from under your feet at the last minute, it will not feel early to you. It may be early to the judge, but it is not early to you. Therefore, we now need to look at that. We discuss it regularly in the Criminal Justice Board. There are benefits to the Public Prosecution Service and to policing from having a properly graduated system in which everyone can see what the outcome will be if you plead guilty at various stages.

I dealt with one victim, and I want to share a bit of the story without sharing too much. She was a victim of child sexual abuse at the hands of her siblings. She did not report it to the police until she was an adult, and, as an adult, she had lived with it her whole life. Her brothers continued to contend that they did not do it and that it had never happened, so she had to go to court, which was a really traumatic experience. During the trial, they pled to a lesser charge and got credit for an early plea. She said to me, "How can the past 40 years of my life, and seven years of court wrangles, mean that it can be considered to be an early plea?". The trauma caused to her and her family was immense. What we mean by an early guilty plea therefore needs to be considered, because it may not feel early to the victim.

I thank Maurice Bradley for sharing his family's very personal experience of losing a loved one to dangerous driving, which is a really impactful issue. Increasing the starting point and the maximum sentence for those cases is really important to families. I reassure him that we will not create lots of new offences. Rather, we want to provide clarity on how sentencing works and offer more robust alternatives to custody. I also reassure him that, although we are doing that, we will still need our prison at Magilligan. The new prison will come.

Very importantly, Emma Sheerin and Philip McGuigan recognised that understanding the vulnerability of offenders as well as of victims is an important part of justice. I hope that the purposes and principles of the Bill reflect that. As Members can see, we have said that the principles are that sentencing should be fair, proportionate and transparent. The proposed purposes are punishment, which is important and the one that everybody goes to immediately; protection of the public, including victims; reduction of crime through deterrence, which can also be done through that rehabilitation process that I mentioned; and making reparations. Those are the established principles that surround court rulings, but putting them down on paper so that people can see what a sentence is meant to achieve is really important for securing public confidence.

As I mentioned already, the fact that sentencing for serious offences can still be suspended is not the norm. It does not happen routinely, but it does happen in certain cases. Philip talked about people who, for lots of reasons, such as addiction or other pressures, may find themselves with a serious charge against them and a serious conviction, yet their likelihood of reoffending is quite low. In such cases, giving a suspended sentence and allowing them, as we are suggesting, to have positive input during that time to deal with the underlying causes of their offending may be more effective in turning their life around and making the community safer. I have agreed to meet the all-party group on that issue. I look forward to discussing how we take those issues forward, including as part of the review. It is really important that we understand the reasons behind offending.

Paula raised the issue of hate crime and the wider impact of crime that is motivated by hostility and hatred. Hopefully, we have been able to deal with that. I put on record my thanks to Claire Sugden, who started this process back in the distant mists of time. It has now finally come to fruition in the Bill. I hope that the next review will be implemented much more quickly and that we will not have to wait 10 years for one to happen.

Mark Durkan acknowledged the judiciary's complex role. One of the reasons that we have steered away from mandatory minimum sentences is that we are trying to avoid fettering judicial discretion. There will, however, be exceptional cases, so it is important that the judiciary recognise that and take account of the evidence. We try to peg it from the top of the sentence, and then the judiciary can decide whether there are mitigations or aggravations and proceed from there. On balance, that is a better way forward. We have only a very small number of cases in which there are mandatory minimum sentences. I would be keen to avoid fettering judicial discretion, simply to give the judiciary its place.

Deterrence came up more than once. I will be honest: the truth is that being caught is the biggest deterrent. Most people do not commit crime expecting to be caught. If they think that they will be caught, that serves as a deterrent. Does anybody who embarks on a course of criminal activity ever sit down and ponder whether they will get 18 months, two years or two and a half years before they go out and do what they are doing? Probably not. There is a deterrent effect for offences such as murder, as there should be. The truth, however, is that many people in the prison system are there for crimes of impulse. They are in prison for crimes that were not thought through or considered. There are people whose lives are spiralling into chaos, and, as a result, they do things without giving any thought to the consequences for themselves, their victim or anyone else. The degree to which deterrence will be influenced by small changes in the sentence is, I think, limited. It is not without value, of course, but the bigger issue is about getting more police officers out there so that people have the real deterrent of thinking that they will get caught. That will be transformative.

Suspended sentences and community orders can help with drug dealing. The issue is about how they are managed in the community. Vulnerability is also complex. Many of those who deal drugs in this society do so under coercion. They do it under coercion from paramilitaries to pay off debts or from others who previously dealt them drugs and now demand that they deal drugs in the community. You can have multiple levels of vulnerability in that. When I met Pauline Duddy, I was really impressed by her. How she has handled the loss of her daughter Jasmin and campaigned for us to take vulnerability in drug deaths seriously is remarkable. When I meet parents of young people who have died, victims of crime and people who have suffered, I never fail to be impressed by the positivity with which they approach what has happened to them. Almost all of them know that what they are doing will make no difference to their situation. It will not make them better or get justice for their child or family member, but they all say that they do not want it to happen to anyone else. That common humanity shows itself really strongly in someone such as Pauline.

Those who direct or participate in organised crime are already dealt with in the Sentencing Bill. I do not think that it is always about the person who hands the package over. It is the people at the top of the food chain who push those drugs out into our community and exploit all manner of vulnerability and need who really need to be tackled. I really want to deal with those people.

As I have said, there are a number of areas in the new review: for example, good character evidence; serious sexual offences and the sentencing around those; drug-related offences, as a direct result of Pauline Duddy's speaking with us; Harper's law; fireworks offences, which were previously raised in the Chamber; animal welfare and environmental crime, which I am doing jointly with Andrew; and sentencing guideline mechanisms, including whether we should have a council. There is also the independent sentencing review in England and Wales: we need to take cognisance of that, but, rather than jumping on the bandwagon now, I would rather see how it works through the system first. We will still be working on those areas. We have not set any of them aside just because they are not in the Bill.

I thank Members for sticking it out for the duration of the debate. I am really encouraged by the support and the constructive behaviour and engagement today. I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. It has been really useful, and it has given us food for thought. I anticipate that the Committee will find the Bill's content interesting and compelling. I trust that there will be a new appreciation of the complexity of this area of law, not only in the Committee but in the public domain, as we debate the issues and, hopefully, help people to understand. As I said, there will be a temptation to pack more and more content into the Bill, but I ask people to try to show restraint. I, too, would love to pack more into the Bill, and, while there will be things around the margins that we can do, given the limited time that we have, the priority will be ensuring that the Bill gets through before the end of the mandate, so that those who have waited for 10 years and more to get legislation on the books will be able to see it go through in this mandate.

I commend the Bill to the Assembly for approval, and I wish the Committee every success in the task ahead. Our shared endeavour on the Bill can be an exemplar of how Ministers and Committees should work together to bring better outcomes to the public.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee.

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

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

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Justice Committee has been very patient and very busy today, so I do not intend to take quite as long on this legislation as I did on the previous legislation.

As Members will know, the Crime and Policing Bill was introduced at Westminster on 25 February 2025. The provisions in that Bill extend to Northern Ireland to deal with tackling serious crime, economic crime, sexual-related crime and increased public safety across Northern Ireland. Those provisions are primarily in the justice sphere and create new offences and more effectively deal with serious and organised crime and the protection of victims.

Members will be familiar with the contents of the Bill and will recall that I brought forward two earlier legislative consent motions (LCM), which received the agreement of the Assembly on 23 June 2025 and 2 February 2026. The contents of this LCM relate to amendments tabled at Lords Report Stage. As Members will be aware, the amendments were previously tabled at Lords Committee Stage but were withdrawn due to the Opposition's concern that the use of digital ID would become mandatory. However, the UK Government have confirmed that it is not a blanket requirement mandating the use of digital ID to purchase or receive knives or crossbows. It is simply making provision for alternative forms of ID, digital or otherwise, to be used.

The Department has engaged with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in relation to the amendments. The commission has advised that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) analysis provided by the UK Government appears to be broadly sound and that the provisions in the Bill, which will extend to Northern Ireland, are compliant with article 2(1) of the Windsor framework.

There are five provisions for which I am now seeking the consent of the Assembly to extend to Northern Ireland. Those measures are set out in clauses 31 to 35 and would put in place robust age verification requirements for the remote sale and delivery of knives and crossbows by amending the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 and the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

The provisions in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 have not yet been commenced for Northern Ireland. However, I consider it important to amend them through the Crime and Policing Bill so that they are robust and ready for implementation. My Department plans to progress an extensive programme of work in the next mandate to fully commence all the provisions.

Given the plans for the programme of work and the interconnected nature of the provisions, I believe that the best approach is for the amendments to the primary legislation related to age verification for the sale of knives and crossbows to be commenced as part of a single package of related measures in the next Assembly mandate.

As part of that planned programme of work, the Department also intends to consult on whether further primary legislation relating to knives should be introduced in the next mandate; for example, a new power for police to seize, retain and destroy illegally held bladed articles held in private where the police are lawfully on private property, provisions to increase the maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons and to create a new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence, and the offence of threatening with an offensive weapon or knife.

That approach would enable the provisions to be commenced as part of a composite package that the Assembly could consider as a whole, rather than adopting a piecemeal approach to commence what is a complex legislative reform piece.

Separately, we plan to introduce secondary legislation in the next financial year to outlaw private ownership of offensive weapons, such as flick knives, zombie knives, machetes and ninja-style swords. That will bring Northern Ireland into line with other UK jurisdictions. An associated surrender and compensation scheme for such weapons will also launch in the next financial year.

Turning to the content of the LCM, the amended provisions would replace simple age checks with stricter two-step buyer verification checks at point of sale and point of delivery. Those provisions were the result of Commander Steve Clayman's independent end-to-end review of online knife sales, which was commissioned by the Home Secretary following the Southport attack in the summer of 2024. The overall aim of the provisions is to prevent knives and crossbows from getting into the hands of under-18s by linking the verified buyer at checkout with the person who receives the parcel.

Turning to each clause in turn, a new clause would be added to clause 31 of the Bill for Northern Ireland, mirroring that of clause 31 for England and Wales, which relates to remote sales of knives. It is already an offence under article 54(1) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to sell a knife and certain articles with a blade or point to persons under the age of 18. Article 54(4) of the 1996 Order provides a defence to that offence, where the person charged can prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.

The new article 54A, which will be added to the 1996 Order once section 37 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 is commenced, sets out the conditions that must apply to prove the defence in the case of remote sales. Condition A requires the seller to operate an age verification system that is likely to prevent a person aged under 18 from buying a knife. That legislation and associated guidance, however, does not stipulate what such age verification should look like, meaning that there are no defined standards for sellers to meet. Condition B requires the seller to ensure that, when the article is dispatched, the package is clearly marked to indicate that it contains a bladed article and that it is also clearly marked that the package should not be delivered into the hands of a person under 18. Condition C requires the seller to take all reasonable precautions and exercise all due diligence to ensure that, when the package is delivered, it is handed over to a person aged 18 or over. That applies whether the seller delivers the package themselves or through a third party. Condition D requires that the seller must not arrange the package to be delivered or deliver the package to a locker.

The new clause in the Crime and Policing Bill removes and replaces condition A to strengthen age verification requirements. Conditions B to D remain the same. Under the replacement condition A, the seller must obtain from the buyer a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer in physical form and a photograph of the buyer. The seller must be satisfied, on the basis of those items, that the buyer is over 18. On the basis of the ID and photograph, a reasonable person would need to have been satisfied that the buyer was aged 18 or over. The new clause also allows the Department of Justice to prescribe, by order, subject to draft affirmative procedure, that an alternative process for age verification can be used. That is to ensure that legislation keeps pace with future potential developments around ID.

Clause 32 deals with the delivery of knives and, subject to the agreement of the Assembly, will extend to Northern Ireland. Clause 32 amends sections 38 to 42 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, which provides for several offences and defences relating to the delivery of knives bought remotely, which have not yet been commenced in Northern Ireland. It is considered that those provisions need to be strengthened, as there have been instances where knives were delivered to lockers and residential premises without proper checks.

Clause 32 is complex and contains multiple provisions, which I will now summarise. I will begin with the delivery of bladed products to residential premises or lockers by UK sellers. Once the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 is commenced in Northern Ireland, a UK-based seller will commit an offence under section 38(2) of the Act if, for the purposes of supplying the bladed product to the buyer, they deliver the bladed product or arrange for its delivery to residential premises. In addition, the UK-based seller will commit an offence under section 38(3) of the 2019 Act if, for the purposes of supplying the bladed product to the buyer, they deliver the product or arrange for its delivery to a locker. Defences for both offences are provided for in section 40 of the Act, but those are vague and do not provide sellers with clarity on what is actually required of them.

Clause 32 does not amend the offences, but it provides for replacement defences to place a more stringent requirement on sellers. For example, a seller charged under section 38(2) of the 2019 Act with an offence of delivering a bladed product to residential premises will need to show that certain delivery conditions have been met if they are to rely on the defence. Those delivery conditions are that the person finally delivering the bladed product was shown by the person into whose hands it was finally delivered an identity document issued to them in a physical form, or took such steps to verify their age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Department of Justice, and that, on the basis of that document or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that the person was over 18 and that, if the buyer was an individual, that that person was the buyer.

I will now turn to the delivery of bladed products to persons under 18. Where a sale is carried out remotely by a UK-based seller, or where a corporate body, such as a delivery company, has entered into arrangements with that seller to deliver the bladed products, section 39(6) of the 2019 Act, which, as I said, has not yet been commenced in Northern Ireland, currently provides for an offence for a delivery company to deliver them to someone under 18. However, it is recognised that there are situations in which the delivery company engaged by the seller to deliver the product may subcontract that delivery to other companies. We believe that it is essential that all companies in the chain are liable for prosecution if, when the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises, it is not delivered into the hands of a person aged 18 or over and if the buyer is an individual as opposed to a company. As I have mentioned, section 40 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 contained a range of defences to the offences provided for in section 39. Clause 32 amends section 40 of the 2019 Act to replace those defences with ones with more stringent requirements. For example, it will be a defence for a main contractor or subcontractor charged with an offence to show that the delivery conditions that I outlined were met.

In addition, clause 32 inserts a range of new offences into the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, relating to the delivery of bladed products to collection points. These offences capture sellers and all contractors in the delivery chain, making them responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age ID verification. Clause 32 also provides for a new offence for a collection point operator, or someone acting on their behalf, to hand over a bladed product to a person who is not an eligible person following a remote sale unless the specified collection conditions are met. The collection conditions will be that the person who collected the bladed product showed the individual giving them the bladed product an identity document, issued to them in physical form, and that, on the basis of that document, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that that person was over 18 and that, if the buyer was an individual, they were the buyer. Section 42 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 makes provision in relation to a new offence for delivery companies related to the delivery of bladed articles following remote sales by overseas sellers. Clause 32 amends section 42 to capture all companies in the delivery chain and add more stringent requirements for defences to apply.

I move on to crossbows. A new section on remote sale and letting of crossbows will be inserted for Northern Ireland, replicating section 33 for England and Wales. This will put in place age verification requirements that sellers need to follow when selling or letting crossbows remotely to reduce the chances of persons under 18 being able to buy or let a crossbow. As with knives, the seller will be required to obtain from the buyer a copy of an identity document such as a passport or driving licence, issued to the buyer in a physical form, and a photograph of the buyer. On this basis of the things obtained, a reasonable person would need to be satisfied that that buyer was over 18. The new section also allows the Department of Justice to prescribe by regulations an alternative process for age verification, such as digital ID. Sellers will need to ensure that, when the package is being dispatched, it is clearly marked to indicate that it contains a crossbow or part of a crossbow and that, when finally delivered, it should only be delivered into the hands of the buyer. Did they take all reasonable precautions and exercise all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, it was given into the hands of the buyer and that the package would not be able to be delivered to a locker? A new section for Northern Ireland on delivery of crossbows will be inserted, which will replicate section 34 for England and Wales. This creates a range of offences and defences relating to the delivery of crossbows to premises following a remote sale equivalent to those for knives that I have just described.

A new section for Northern Ireland, "Sale and delivery of crossbows Northern Ireland: supplementary provision", will also be inserted, which will replicate section 35 for England and Wales. That new section will provide interpretation to the definitions used in relation to the new offences detailed above. It will also make general provision, including in respect of the Assembly procedure for regulations made under the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, as amended.

In conclusion — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, you will be relieved to hear those words — I fully appreciate that the Assembly's preference is to legislate here in Northern Ireland on matters for Northern Ireland where possible, and that is my preference. This Bill, however, is in its final stages in Parliament, and, with the legislative constraints in the current mandate, it is not possible to bring equivalent provision via an Assembly Bill in the near future. Therefore, I believe that, on this occasion, it is appropriate that these amendments be made in a Westminster Bill, and I ask for the House's support in passing the motion. Before I finish, I place on record my thanks to the Justice Committee and to my Executive colleagues for their consideration of the issues enclosed, as I know that it was done in a fairly short turnaround. I thank you for considering this, and I look forward to hearing any questions or comments that Members have.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion as Chair of the Committee for Justice. The Minister has outlined the purpose of this third LCM for the Crime and Policing Bill and the provisions that it will extend to Northern Ireland, so I will focus my remarks on the Committee's consideration.

The Committee for Justice supported the Minister's proposals to extend a number of provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill by way of two previous legislative consent motions that were debated in the Chamber on 23 June 2025 and on 2 February 2026. The Committee was advised by the Department in June last year that the provisions in today's motion would be part of the second LCM. In relation to strengthening age verification for the online sale and delivery of knives and crossbows, the Committee took oral evidence from Department of Justice officials on that provision at its meeting of 11 September 2025. The Committee requested further information on how the age verification process for the purchase of knives would work for online purchases and how the threshold of six was determined for reportable sales of bladed articles, and it asked for clarification on the different definitions of "a knife" within the provisions and how those were distinct from each other. The Committee noted the Department's response at its meeting on 9 October 2025.

The Committee received an update from the Department in November, however, advising that the provisions had been removed from the second LCM due to the Opposition indicating that they would oppose the amendments as they were linking the power to specify other methods of age verification with the Government's plan for a digital ID scheme. During its consideration of the second LCM, on 15 January this year, a paper from the Department informed Committee members of the potential for a third LCM should the provisions be reintroduced during Lords Report Stage. The Department advised that, if that was not possible, it would be necessary to include the measures in a Northern Ireland Bill in the next mandate.

At its meeting on 5 March 2026, the Committee considered a further update from the Department informing members that the Justice Minister had received correspondence from the Minister of State (Crime and Policing) about several Government amendments tabled for the Lords Report Stage that applied to Northern Ireland. In addition to those covered by this LCM, the amendments related to child criminal exploitation, child sexual abuse image generators, stalking and access to driver licensing information. Members noted the Department's advice that it was not necessary to include those in a new LCM as the amendments were minor enough not to represent a change in policy, were minor drafting changes, reflected approaches already taken in statutory guidance or fell within the scope of the LCMs previously agreed by the House.

The Department advised that a third LCM would, however, be needed to extend the provision in the Crime and Policing Bill dealing with powers to strengthen age verification requirements for the online sale and delivery of knives and crossbows to Northern Ireland. Subject to Executive approval, the Department aimed to schedule a debate for 16 March. The Committee was content to note the update on the proposal for the third LCM. Furthermore, in noting that, under Standing Order 42A(9), paragraphs 42A(4) to (8) did not apply to subsequent LCMs, and, in view of the limited time available, the Committee agreed not to complete a report on the third memorandum. The Department's correspondence has been made available on the Committee's web page. At its meeting last Thursday, 12 March, the Committee noted confirmation from the Department that it had received Executive approval to bring forward a third LCM in respect of the age verification provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill and that the memorandum had, therefore, been tabled.

I will now speak as a member of the Democratic Unionist Party. We welcome anything that makes life safer for everyone in Northern Ireland, especially when it involves knives and crossbows. I have witnessed crimes in my North Antrim constituency involving attacks by knives and crossbows, so that is something that we have to be mindful of and careful in dealing with. Age verification is really important because there should be no way for a child to be getting their hands on equipment that can cause so much damage to life and limb. Therefore, it is important that we focus on the age aspect.

Given the contention, even in Westminster, where there was a debate on age verification and the use of digital ID, it is important that I record my party's view that we need to take the issue of digital ID very seriously and that the mandatory nature of the Government's proposal was going to be very damaging, had it seen the light of day. We should also be alert and forever vigilant about the determination of this Government to bring in digital ID. It is not good enough to say that it will not be mandatory, when they will make life so difficult for those who do not have digital ID. It is not good enough to say that something is voluntary when people's lives will become so arduous without it. That is an indirect way of making digital ID mandatory. For the life of me, I cannot think why digital ID is needed for age verification when being sold a knife or a crossbow, even online. Every adult will have some form of ID that they can utilise to ensure that, when someone is selling them a knife or crossbow, they will be able to prove their age. The burden should be on the buyer to prove that they are over 18. That way is much safer.

The Government should not have used the Crime and Policing Bill or any other Bill to push aspects, small as they may be, of digital ID on to the people whom, they say, they are trying to protect. There are massive issues with digital ID that we will not go into today, but I put down a marker that my party will be forever vigilant, as, I am sure, will parties in the House that do not support digital ID in that guise. We will remain vigilant for ever and a day of all aspects of digital ID legislation here and at Westminster.

Miss Hargey: As the Minister said, the Committee and the Chamber have scrutinised a number of LCMs that pertain to the Crime and Policing Bill. Like the Member who spoke previously, we have concerns about elements of the Bill. That shows why we would ideally want to legislate locally in the Assembly, but there are circumstances in which we need to consider legislative consent motions, and this is one such circumstance.

The LCM that we are considering is narrow in focus. As has been said, it looks at the important area of age verification requirements, particularly for online sales, which is an issue that we continually hear about in Committee and elsewhere in our role as MLAs. The legislation that we are considering by way of the Minister's LCM is essential and important. Following our party's scrutiny of it and the Justice Committee's scrutiny and having considered it in the Chamber today, we are content with the LCM.

Ms Egan: I support the third legislative consent motion that the Alliance Justice Minister, Naomi Long, has brought to the House on Westminster's Crime and Policing Bill. The LCM deals specifically with extending powers that strengthen age verification requirements for the online sale and delivery of knives and crossbows. I commend Minister Long and her departmental officials for moving as swiftly and flexibly as possible on this as a matter of public safety, particularly considering the already packed legislative programme ahead of us.

Alliance welcomes the provisions, which clarify and solidify law relating to the need for a physical passport or driving licence as proof of age for the remote sale of a knife or for the remote sale or hire of a crossbow. The amendments also make provision for regulations to prescribe an alternative process for age verification and ensure that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for age and ID verification on the delivery of bladed products and crossbows to residential premises.

It is a welcome step forward in tightening and regulating access to knives and sharp instruments across Northern Ireland. As noted in the PSNI's crime bulletin that was released just last month, there were 545 crimes involving a knife or sharp instrument between December 2024 and December 2025. Knives or other sharp instruments are recorded as having been used in seven cases of rape and sexual assault in the same period.

Realistically, that only scratches the surface of how frequently knives and sharp instruments are used to harm, intimidate and coerce in domestic settings. We must do all that we can to prevent that from happening, and increased age and identity verifications for knife and crossbow ownership could be a constructive step in that.

I hope that all Members across the Chamber will join my party and me and pass the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Doug Beattie.

Mr Beattie: I am happy enough, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: And so say all of us. [Laughter.]

Mrs Long: I will not keep you long. Doug's brevity has put down a challenge for us all.

I want to say a couple of things. First, I totally agree that tying digital ID in with the Bill was a mistake that caused a degree of consternation. We are in danger, today, of agreeing too much: I do not know whether that does more damage to my reputation or Doug's. I am not in favour of compulsory ID or coercing people into having ID. Deirdre Hargey made the point about a lot of the Bill's content being things that we would not want to replicate, and I completely agree. However, as Connie Egan set out, the use of knives and crossbows is rising, and it is important to have more strictures around them. This extension will give us a suite of measures from the 2019 Act that we can properly commence in the next mandate, and, in the interim, enable us to have a scheme that allows people who have knives that will become illegal to dispose of them in an appropriate manner. I hope that Members are content to support the LCM.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I hope I did not put you off talking.

Mrs Long: Never.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. I do not think that anybody could, but there you go. [Laughter.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

Ms Sugden: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Welcome back, Claire; it is great to see you here. 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Claire, please open the debate on the motion.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Women's health is often spoken about as if it were a series of separate issues that arise at different points in a woman's life: menstrual health in adolescence; contraception in early adulthood; pregnancy and childbirth for those who choose to have children; menopause in mid-life; and the challenges of ageing later. The reality is that women's health does not work like that. It is not a series of isolated episodes; it is a continuous journey. The information that women are given or not given, the symptoms that are dismissed or left undiagnosed and the services that they are unable to access will shape their health outcomes decades later.

That is the central reason why I have proposed the motion in the Assembly today: women's health requires a life-course approach. It requires us to think ahead, to join the dots between the different stages of life and to recognise that the health needs of half our population cannot be addressed through fragmented services.

In reality, the individual services struggle to meet the needs of women. Even where services exist, they are often not accessible when women need them. We see that most clearly in the extraordinary wait times for gynaecology services in Northern Ireland. Women wait years for assessment and treatment for conditions that significantly affect their daily lives, their physical health and their ability to work and care for their families.

I recently spoke to a woman who, by the time that her gynaecology appointment came up, no longer needed it, yet she was advised to keep it on the basis that the waiting list was so long that she might need it years later. That tells us something about the reality of access to care in Northern Ireland today.

We see similar pressures in other areas of women's health. Osteoporosis services, for example, provide excellent clinical care but struggle to keep up with the scale of demand. Too often, osteoporosis is identified only after an older woman experiences a serious fall and presents at hospital with a fracture. Anyone who has spent time in an emergency department (ED) will recognise how frequently older women appear in the waiting rooms following falls that might ultimately be linked to weakened bone health.

That is not simply a clinical issue; it is a systemic issue. Better prevention, early identification and a more coordinated approach to women's health could reduce suffering for those women and pressure on our health service at the same time.

That raises a wider point about prevention and public health. Bone health and muscle strength decline as we age, particularly in women. Strength and resistance training are widely recognised as one of the most effective ways of reducing the risk of osteoporosis and falls later in life, yet much of the conversation about that happens through private initiatives, gyms or community groups rather than structured public health messaging. If we are serious about prevention, advice about strength, physical activity and bone health should be embedded in our public health approach and supported across our health system. A women's health strategy should therefore address not only clinical services but the role of prevention, education and public health in supporting women's well-being across the life course.

We see inequalities in areas of health that are not always immediately recognised as women's health issues. Heart disease remains one of the leading causes of death among women, yet awareness of heart attack symptoms among women remains far lower than it should be. Women are also more likely to experience delayed or missed diagnosis following a heart attack. Similarly, dementia disproportionately affects women. Women live longer on average, which increases their lifetime risk of developing dementia, and they represent a majority of those living with the condition.

Those examples demonstrate something important: women's health inequalities are not confined to reproductive health or gynaecology but exist through the entire health system as women go from adolescence to older age. However, our services are still largely organised around isolated conditions rather than the health journey that women experience during their life.

For younger women and girls, a lack of consistent support and understanding remains around menstrual health and conditions such as endometriosis and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). Many women describe years of pain before receiving a diagnosis or appropriate treatment. Those delays matter because the longer a diagnosis takes, the greater the impact on a woman's health, fertility, mental well-being and ability to participate in education, employment and everyday life.

For women who become pregnant and have children, another critical stage of health emerges. Perinatal mental health, covering pregnancy and the period after childbirth, remains an area in which services have historically been insufficiently and unevenly distributed. Many women experience anxiety, depression or trauma during pregnancy and after childbirth. When I spoke publicly about my experience of perinatal mental health, one of the things that I was most struck by was the number of women who contacted me afterwards to say that what they were experiencing now had a name; they had not known that. Thankfully, they then sought support. That tells us something important about awareness, stigma and how easily women's health issues go unrecognised. A comprehensive women's health strategy would recognise that care for maternal mental health is not optional; it is a fundamental part of our healthcare.

As women move into midlife, perimenopause and menopause bring another set of challenges that can affect physical and mental health. Public awareness of menopause has improved in recent years, but much of that conversation is happening through communities and social media, rather than through structured support in our health service. Women are sharing experiences of anxiety, sleep disruption, night sweats, brain fog and a range of other symptoms without having clear guidance or support from the health system. That cannot be the long-term solution. It reinforces the need for proper clinical pathways, education and support. A GP recently told me that, while primary care provides services such as contraception, cervical screening and maternity care, menopause is not explicitly embedded in the GP contract in Northern Ireland. That is extraordinary. Although every woman will experience it in their lifetime, they cannot access those services through primary care. We need to change that as a minimum, if not have something wider via a public health strategy.

Primary care is the front door of our health service. It is where most women first seek help when they begin experiencing symptoms, but there is no structured framework in the contract that recognises menopause as a core element of women's health. That absence reinforces the wider point that women's health has too often been treated as a series of isolated services rather than something embedded across the system, including in primary care, which is the first point of contact.

Other jurisdictions across the UK and Ireland have recognised the need for a more coordinated approach. England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland have all developed dedicated women's health strategies or action plans designed to address the gender health gap and ensure that women's health is properly considered across the life course. Northern Ireland is developing work in that area, including the women's health action plan and the Minister's commitment to producing a strategic framework. Those steps are welcome, but individual initiatives are not the same as a fully developed and coordinated strategy. Northern Ireland still lacks a clear approach that connects prevention, diagnosis, treatment and support across the life course and that provides transparency about delivery, funding and outcomes. It is also reasonable to ask whether the current system is meeting our equality obligations. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act requires public authorities to:

Given the disparities that we see in women's health outcomes and access to services, we all need to ask that question.

Women's health is not a niche issue. It affects half the population at every stage of life. If we want a health system that truly works for everyone, women's health cannot remain an afterthought; it must be considered strategically across the life course and the entire health system. For those reasons, I commend my motion to the House.

Ms Flynn: I thank the proposer of the motion. As chair of the all-party group on women's health, I speak today about not only policy failure but the lived reality of women across our communities who are being failed by our health service every single day.

Women here in the North continue to face profound inequalities in access to timely, safe and compassionate healthcare. The issues are not new; they are well documented, long-standing and deeply systemic. We know that women are waiting too long for gynae appointments, diagnostic tests and treatment. In many cases, those delays mean prolonged pain, deteriorating mental health and a loss of dignity. I highlight the devastating legacy of transvaginal mesh. Women who trusted the health service to improve their quality of life found themselves living with chronic pain, life-changing complications and, in many cases, a long battle simply to be believed. To date, not one of those women has received a single penny by way of redress. Many have yet to have those damaging devices removed, which are now stuck on their organs like chewing gum. Their experiences should have been a turning point: a moment when women's voices were finally placed at the centre of healthcare policy. However, many women feel that the lessons have not been fully learned. Conditions such as endometriosis continue to be under-diagnosed and under-treated. Women are routinely told that their pain is normal, that they simply must cope and that long waiting lists are inevitable. There is nothing inevitable about systemic neglect.

Early diagnosis and intervention would save not only suffering but long-term costs to our health service. The inequality does not stop there: evidence shows that women are more likely than men to experience delayed diagnosis after a heart attack, less likely to receive timely, guideline-recommended treatment and more likely to die following a cardiac event.

It is not about biology alone; it is about gender bias in research and clinical pathways and how women's symptoms are understood. At the same time, inequality is felt in everyday life. Period poverty remains a reality for too many girls and women. The fact that women are still struggling to access basic sanitary products in 2026 is a stark reminder that health inequality is deeply connected to social and economic injustice.

We must also recognise the growing crisis in addiction services for women. Women experiencing substance dependency often face additional stigma, barriers to treatment, childcare pressures and the fear of being judged, followed by potential involvement with social services. Gender-specific addiction support remains limited, despite the clear links between trauma, mental health and substance use. A truly equitable health system must provide equitable and accessible specialist services in which there is an understanding of the unique needs of our women.

Mental health support for new and expectant mothers is another area where gaps remain. The need for a properly resourced mother-and-baby unit and specialist perinatal services is clear. Women experiencing severe postnatal mental health difficulties must be able to access care that allows them to remain with their babies, in a safe and supported therapeutic environment, rather than being separated from their newborn babies, as happens at the moment. That is essential for their recovery, for their bonding with their babies and for long-term family well-being.

The absence of a fully resourced and comprehensive women's health strategy continues to result in inconsistent care across the life course. Women not only deserve but need services that are joined-up, preventative and accessible, at every stage of their lives. We can appreciate the undeniable pressures on our health service and the fact that services are stretched, but it is often women's health that is pushed to the margins. That cannot continue. Women should not be the only ones to carry the burden of systemic failure. We need urgent action, clear timelines for reform and genuine engagement with women who have lived experience of navigating the system. Most importantly, we need to have political leadership that recognises women's health as a core priority, not a secondary concern. The commitments outlined in the motion must translate into measurable progress, improved access to services and a real change to outcomes for women across the North, because, when women's health is neglected, the impact is felt in homes, schools and workplaces across every community that we represent. The women whom we represent deserve better, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they finally get it.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the proposer of this important motion. It is a pity that the motion has been moved when the Health Minister is not here to respond to the debate, because we need to have answers from the Minister.

One of the first debates in which I spoke following the restoration of the institutions was on this exact issue: a strategy and action plan for women's health. It has been two years since that debate, and little has changed in the interim. The issues of women's health and the inequalities in accessing healthcare are regularly discussed in the Chamber. It is very frustrating that so little has happened to take away the structural inequalities or to even put in place a coherent plan to deal with them. Where are the strategy and the action plan that were promised in February 2024? On 13 February 2024, the Department of Health released a media statement entitled "Minister Swann outlines Women’s Health Action Plan", which stated that the:

Two of those years have now elapsed, and there is still no sign of an action plan or a strategy.

The Minister often reminds us that he is not that fond of strategies, because we have plenty of those, and nothing is happening, but we do not even have an action plan. Until we start to plan for how to deal with the structural inequalities in women's health, we will not get to the nub of dealing with them. That is an important point that I want the Assembly to take on board.

At the weekend, I looked up the most up-to-date waiting times in the South Eastern Trust. For gynaecology, for example, the wait for a routine first outpatient appointment was 112 weeks. After waiting for 112 weeks, there was a subsequent wait before being admitted for treatment of 139 weeks. That is a wait of almost five years from first being placed on a waiting list to admission for treatment. Waiting times in the Northern Trust and the Belfast Trust are significantly longer. Shamefully — I take no pleasure in saying this — a woman can wait almost 10 years for a diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. Importantly, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said:

We can only conclude that nothing is happening in Northern Ireland in line with that guidance and advice from the royal college. We should all reflect on that.

Where is the response to Getting It Right First Time's review of gynaecology that was published in 2024? I am particularly interested in one of the recommendations in the report that mentioned women's health hubs. Those have been rolled out in England as part of the women's health strategy. The contrast between what is provided here and in England is quite significant. Dr Janet Barter, head of Tower Hamlets women's health hub, described the service that they provide:

Also:

Colleagues, compare that with the disjointed and delayed service that women in Northern Ireland experience.

The mover of the motion referred to the British Heart Foundation's heart attack gender gap research that concludes that women are under-aware of coronary heart disease, under-diagnosed and under-treated by their GPs.

I want to finish by saying that I spoke in the debate two years ago about the cervical smear scandal in the Southern Trust.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Diane, will you finish now, please?

Mrs Dodds: Yes, I will. Thank, Mr Deputy Speaker. That still has not been resolved, which is shameful.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for moving the motion. Two years ago, my maiden speech was on an Alliance motion specifically about women's health. On that date, the then Minister confirmed that there would be a women's health action plan, not a strategy, which everyone in the Chamber united behind and agreed was what we needed. Many in the Chamber were willing to give the Department the benefit of the doubt on the action plan if it was developed and implemented, but we are no further forward today.

I start by discussing why we have to keep coming back to the issue of women's health. I agree with the proposer and the two Members who spoke before me that women's health is not about isolated incidents throughout their life, whether it is puberty, pregnancy, childbirth or menopause. It is about having a whole-system approach to how we treat women and an interconnected lifespan of healthcare. No offence to anyone working in healthcare who helped to develop the system, but we are talking about a system that was developed by men for men, because, had the system been developed in conjunction with women, we would not be having the debate today.

Today, I looked up the advice that is given in different areas of healthcare. The advice given to those who use vasectomy services includes having 48 hours of heavy rest, no lifting and ensuring that you relax and do not do anything remotely strenuous, yet women do not get the same advice after childbirth, which is often very traumatic. Instead, although a lot of them would like to remain at hospital, they are often sent home mere hours after giving birth to take care of a new life while still recovering physically and mentally.

Much research from across the world shows that it takes years for women's bodies and brains to return to pre-pregnancy levels and recover properly, yet we are expected to go home and perform a new role in life. I honestly believe that that is because of gender bias in the healthcare system. It is, however, something that many people in healthcare are starting to tackle.

Members have already spoken about the British Health Foundation's 'Bias and Biology' report. Following its research, the British Heart Foundation said that gender inequalities in care following heart attacks show that, compared with men, women are much more likely to receive a delayed diagnosis following a heart attack; less likely to receive timely guideline-indicated treatment; and ultimately more likely to die from a heart attack. That is one example of healthcare that is not attributable to puberty, pregnancy or menopause symptoms.

Another example, which I have brought to light continually, with the help of members of the gynae workforce in Belfast, is the issue of robotic-assisted surgery in treating gynaecological conditions. The da Vinci robot offers a relatively new way of performing surgery. In January of last year, however, we were informed that 518 male patients and just 86 female patients, which the Minister confirmed, had been treated by way of that innovative surgery. We have pushed the issue consistently through questions for written answer, letters and questions at Committee, and I was delighted to hear that the Belfast Trust should, hopefully, receive its new commissioned robot in the upcoming months. I had hoped to ask the Minister for an update on that.

The Minister announced the women's health survey. I pay tribute to Derry Well Women, which has undertaken a listening exercise on that survey. I appreciate all the work that it and Queen's University have been doing, but we are two years on from the announcement of the women's action plan and are still just talking about it. We need to implement it. There needs to be an entire-system approach to dealing with women's healthcare. What is the time frame for its implementation? When are we likely to see it? Perhaps we can follow up on that with the Minister and his Department in Committee. We all know that action plans are never perfect on first publication, so we will have to keep going back to the drawing board.

I also welcome the fact that the motion references primary care arrangements. I would appreciate an update on that, specifically on the pilot programme to transfer eligible endometriosis patients from secondary to primary care.

We could all speak about women's healthcare all day long and raise issues in the Chamber. We will continue to do so, because, until we eradicate gender bias, it will continue year after year.

Mr Chambers: It is entirely right that the Assembly focus on improving outcomes for women in accessing services at every stage of their life. There is little doubt that significant disparities exist in women's health outcomes and in the timeliness with which care can be accessed. Access to gynaecological services, the diagnosis and management of conditions such as endometriosis and the need for more consistent menopause support are all issues that are raised regularly in the Chamber. Those concerns are real, and they deserve a serious response from the health system.

While the motion highlights the challenges, it is also important that we acknowledge the progress that has been made to try to resolve them. The Minister has been clear that improving women's health outcomes is a priority. The work that is currently being undertaken to develop a women's health action plan is a significant step in that direction. Crucially, that work is being informed by the ongoing public listening exercise led by Derry Well Women in partnership with Queen's University Belfast. Thousands of women from across Northern Ireland have contributed their views and experiences through surveys, focus groups and engagement events. That approach is important. If we are serious about designing services that meet women's needs across the life course, those services must be shaped by the lived experiences of the women who use them. Taking the time to gather that evidence is not a delay but a necessary part of getting the policy right.

The motion also makes comparisons with other jurisdictions that have adopted dedicated women's health strategies. In many cases, those strategies have been accompanied by significant additional funding and cross-government commitments. Without those elements in place, there is a real risk that a strategy becomes a list of aspirations rather than a deliverable plan. The Minister has therefore taken a pragmatic approach by focusing first on a women's health action plan that aligns with the wider reform agenda set out in the Health and Social Care (HSC) reset plan and the move towards a neighbourhood model of care.

That approach recognises that many aspects of women's healthcare are best delivered through strong primary and community care services rather than through already stretched hospital waiting lists.

We need to explore not just the quickest way to support women but the most effective and accessible way. We are already beginning to see practical examples of that shift. The enhanced primary care gynaecology service is now a high-volume service with incredibly positive outcomes for the women involved. At the same time, additional investment through the Minister's elective care framework has supported waiting list initiatives with gynaecology services. Targeted funding has allowed trusts to prioritise time-critical assessments. I trust that all parties will continue to support the Minister's request for that funding to be protected in the upcoming Executive Budget-setting exercise.

As MLAs, we understand that improving women's health outcomes will not happen overnight but will require a sustained effort, careful prioritisation and, ultimately, the resources to match our ambitions. The work that is under way is about listening directly to women, strengthening primary care pathways and tackling waiting lists. Ultimately, our shared objective should be clear: to ensure that women and girls across Northern Ireland receive timely, equitable and high-quality healthcare throughout their life. That is a goal that my party and I are happy to support.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the proposer of the motion. It is a really important issue to debate on the Floor of the House.

The motion speaks to an important issue and paints a stark picture. Women's health in Northern Ireland is still not seen as the priority that it should be. Since I was elected to the House in 2020, I have repeatedly raised the need for a dedicated women's health strategy — a strategy that is women-centred, properly resourced and shaped around the real experiences of women, including those living in areas where access to services is already difficult. Too often, women here feel that their symptoms are dismissed, that responses to their concerns are delayed and that their treatment comes far later than it should. That is not because the need is not known; it is because the system has never been fully designed with women's health at its core.

Endometriosis is one of the clearest examples of that failure, and that has already been raised today. That condition affects around one in 10 women, yet it still takes years, on average, to receive a diagnosis. For many, those years are lived in chronic pain with fatigue, fertility problems and a serious impact on mental health and family well-being. In my constituency, I have spoken to women who were passed from appointment to appointment without answers; women who were told that their pain was normal; and women who felt that they had to push again and again simply to be listened to. That experience should concern every one of us in the Chamber, because it shows a system that is not responding quickly enough or fairly enough.

We also know from engagement carried out in the north-west, including the work of Derry Well Women and Queen's University, that women want to see a different approach. It is my understanding that the Minister will receive their final report just after Easter. Those women want services that are far easier to access, clearer to navigate and more responsive to the realities of their lives, but, most of all, they want to know that women's health is being treated as a priority rather than an afterthought. The Department has indicated that work is under way on a women's health action plan: that is welcome, but we want to see it. Where is it? The group in the report says that what it really needs is, obviously, the publication of the action plan, but the group also wants a commitment to a funded strategy that reflects the findings that will be placed at the heart of the report.

Recognition on its own is not enough. We still wait to see that plan published, funded and implemented, and that is why the motion goes further and rightly so. What is required is not just a short-term plan but a full women's health strategy with clear direction, clear targets and clear accountability. It must look at women's health across the whole life course from adolescence through to maternity, menopause and later life. Women's health does not sit neatly in one part of the system; it runs through primary care, hospital services, mental health, sexual health, screening and community provision. Without a joined-up approach and a framework that shapes and closes the gaps, those gaps will continue to appear, and the delays will continue.

There is also a regional dimension that cannot be ignored. Women in the north-west, rural communities and areas where services are already stretched often face the longest waits and the greatest difficulty in getting the care that they need. Equality in health provision does not just mean that services exist somewhere; it means that women can access them when they need them. That is why the motion's reference to section 75 is important. We have a statutory duty to ensure equality in the way in which public services are delivered. That duty must apply to women's health just as much as it applies anywhere else. If the system is not producing equal outcomes, we have a responsibility to ask why and to fix it. The motion does not ask for anything unreasonable. It asks for transparency about the work that has already been promised; a clear timeline for delivery; and a fully costed and time-bound women's health strategy that is developed with the people who rely on those services every day.

Mrs Dillon: I will start by thanking the proposer of the motion.

Women and girls across the North are being failed by our health system. Women's symptoms, pain and experiences have been ignored, dismissed and minimised. Many women have had to fight simply to be heard, to be believed and to receive the care that they need. The absence of a comprehensive life-course approach to women's health exacerbates those disparities. The continued delay in delivering a women's health strategy or action plan, for that matter, means that the North remains the only jurisdiction across Ireland and Britain without a strategic funded plan to ensure that women and girls consistently receive appropriate care.

The impact of that inequality is becoming increasingly clear. Members have referred to the British Heart Foundation report that states that women are more likely to experience delayed diagnosis following a heart attack, are less likely to receive treatment and, as a result, are more likely to needlessly die. We need to be clear about that: it is not just that women die but that they die needlessly. Their lives could be saved. Their families' trauma could be prevented.

The inequalities are not limited to heart disease but reflect a wider pattern across our health system, where women's symptoms are too often dismissed and minimised. We see that in the long waiting lists for red-flag referrals to breast services and gynaecology. We see it in the failure to diagnose or effectively treat conditions such as endometriosis, which leaves women and girls living with severe, life-impacting pain that affects their education, work and fertility and, in many cases, causes lasting damage to their organs, bodies and mobility — their ability to move around freely.

Menopause is another example of how women's health concerns can be misunderstood or dismissed. With it, we see the two extremes. The first is that women are told that their symptoms are "just the menopause", and that they will just have to live with it. In some cases, that has meant serious underlying conditions being missed or diagnosed far too late. In other cases when women are experiencing menopause, they are misdiagnosed with anxiety or depression. They are prescribed medications that they neither need nor want and that do not address their symptoms.

Women deserve to have their symptoms properly examined and correctly diagnosed. In recent years, trust in women's health services has been damaged, as Diane Dodds mentioned. The cervical screening scandal caused enormous distress for many women and their families. It caused deaths.

At this point, it is worth mentioning the need for awareness and education campaigns on women's health. I acknowledge the work of Stephen McCormick, who lost his precious wife, Julie. Stephen is campaigning for the Health Department to implement a public awareness campaign on the symptoms of ovarian cancer. He is right: people need to recognise the seriousness of their symptoms, especially when we have a health system that does not prioritise women's health, because we need confidence and information to advocate for ourselves and on behalf of the women around us whom we love.

I know that the Minister will say that publicity campaigns cost money, and that is true. However, Liz Kimmins, the Infrastructure Minister, recognised the importance of publicity campaigns to saving lives on our roads. I ask the Minister to give the same priority to saving the lives of our women.

Other jurisdictions, including England, Scotland, Wales and the South of Ireland, have recognised the need for dedicated women's health strategies. Women here should not be left behind. Primary care will be central to improving women's health and ensuring that women can access care earlier and closer to home. At the same time, we have to recognise the challenges of delivering highly specialised services to a relatively small population and with a small workforce. In some areas of women's healthcare, there are clear opportunities to strengthen cooperation on an all-Ireland basis in order to ensure that women have access to the expertise and specialist services that they need.

Women are dying due to missed or delayed diagnosis and a misunderstanding of symptoms, leaving behind devastated families. Those women are our sisters, mummies and daughters. They deserve to live a full life, and we need to see an end to the unnecessary deaths. We support developing a comprehensive, fully costed and time-bound women’s health strategy in consultation with women, healthcare professionals and stakeholders; taking a life-course approach to women's health; and, first and foremost, listening to women.

The previous contributor talked about the Derry Well Women centre and how it has been so helpful when it comes to the development of what will hopefully be a good women's health strategy. However, when I was a teenager, there were well women clinics in many of our big towns. I am far from a teenager now, and all of those well women clinics are gone. We have gone 30 years in reverse, so do the maths: I am nearly 50.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for tabling the motion. I am pleased to welcome her back.

I remember the lack of a women's health strategy being raised two years ago in the Chamber. It is really disappointing to be here saying and hearing a lot of the same things today. It is the women in Northern Ireland who are being failed. Throughout our lives, women experience many physical changes and challenges, from periods and infertility to childbirth, menopause and everything in between. The very least that women deserve is to be able to access appropriate, timely and compassionate healthcare when they need it the most. The DUP has consistently called for greater support for endometriosis care, menopause care and perinatal health services. There really is such a need for women and girls in Northern Ireland to have better, more accurate and more timely information to support them with their needs and as they face those challenges.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Member for giving way. It is a very small but important point: many young girls with complex needs require nappies, which are issued by our health service, but periods are not taken into account. Young girls receive the same capped allocation of four nappies as boys. Does the Member agree that that is a serious dignity-in-care issue and that periods should be taken into account?

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

Ms Forsythe: Thank you. I thank the Member for her intervention. I absolutely agree. All these issues are so personal to women and so serious. They all need to be taken into account, and there is no better place to do that than in a health strategy for women and in action plans.

Some of the long waits that women here face worsen their health situations, meaning that women take more time off work or school and struggle with caring responsibilities. Often, they go on to need more serious and invasive medical interventions. The sooner that conditions are treated, the sooner women can get on with their lives.

I will speak to some specific concerns that affect women. Other Members mentioned the cervical cancer scandal. The ongoing devastation and plummet in public confidence has been truly shameful, and it is unresolved, with the Southern Health and Social Care Trust offering some apologies but no overall accountability. Those women deserve better.

I also take the opportunity to raise awareness of ovarian cancer. Linda Dillon mentioned Stephen McCormick. He is a friend and former colleague of mine, who has done so much work in memory of his wife, Julie. Target Ovarian Cancer reports that 40% of women mistakenly believe that their cervical screening will detect ovarian cancer. It is so important to highlight that those tests do not detect ovarian cancer and that women need to understand the symptoms and be very aware of when they need to come forward. Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month is this month — March — and the Public Health Agency is reminding people to be aware of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer. Those may include persistent pelvic or abdominal pain, increased abdominal size or persistent bloating, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, urinary symptoms, changes in bowel habits, extreme fatigue, unexplained weight loss and bleeding after menopause. The symptoms of ovarian cancer are frequent, happening more than 12 times a month, and persistent and new, meaning that they are not normal for you and may have started in the past year. The advice is that, if you experience any of those symptoms, please contact your GP. Finding ovarian cancer early improves the chances of successful treatment.

I will also mention, as the advice from the Public Health Agency is to contact your GP, that huge challenges still remain in Northern Ireland in accessing GP services. The additional pressures that this puts on everyone in Northern Ireland are extreme, especially for women who, quite often, put off their smaller health concerns while busying about looking after others and carrying out caring responsibilities and childcare commitments. The key advice is for women who are concerned to present to their GP with their symptoms, but if they cannot access those appointments, that is very concerning.

In closing, we need to see action on women's health issues. Members across the House have highlighted many concerns today, and while it is disappointing that the Minister is not here today to respond, I hope that we will hear back from him on these issues. We have heard plenty of warm words. The Minister must ensure that women across Northern Ireland receive the care and respect that they deserve. They have waited long enough.

Mr Donnelly: I thank Claire Sugden for moving this important motion. Women's health in Northern Ireland is not a series of disconnected problems; it is a systemic equality issue that has been exacerbated by a lack of rights-based, joined-up approaches to women's lives. Women's healthcare is too often treated as a service or budgetary pressure issue when, in reality, it is a policy gap. Where there is no clear strategy and no measurable outcomes, women are left to navigate fragmentation instead of receiving joined-up care, and when they are continually ignored or disregarded, the consequences impact every part of our society. The Women's Resource and Development Agency reported that it is difficult to get a full picture of women's health in Northern Ireland because the data is too often siloed, gathered through the lens of one issue or another disease, or not examined through the lens of gender inequality. Without data, there can be no proper scrutiny or full understanding of how to adequately address the issues raised.

In February 2024, Alliance moved a motion calling for a women's health strategy. It was my colleague Sian Mulholland's first speech, and it was one of the first motions passed by the Assembly after its restoration earlier that month. The Minister at the time assured Members that he had a strong foundation of work in progress that would form key components of a women's health action plan. He made a commitment that, while it was in the early stages, he was putting women at the centre of discussions to ensure that their voices were heard and that limited funds were appropriately aligned with priorities. He was confident that his approach, along with the support of Assembly colleagues, would improve health outcomes for all women and girls in Northern Ireland. Suffice to say that, two years and no plan later, that approach has not worked.

The continued delays are having an impact on the women of Northern Ireland, and I will highlight a few of the many real stories of women who are impacted by the lack of a meaningful women's health action plan. Frances Kane was featured as part of the British Heart Foundation's 'Bias and Biology' report on the gender heart attack gap that we have heard mentioned today. She had a suspicion that she had cardiac problems, but she was repeatedly told by doctors that, at 27, she was too young, and, as a woman, it was unlikely that she would have a heart attack, despite raising concerns repeatedly around her symptoms and family history. Frances was persistent and was only referred to a cardiologist when she presented to emergency care. The coronary angiogram showed a blockage in Frances's artery. She said:

Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson both died from cervical cancer following smear tests that were misread by staff in the Southern Trust. Over the course of a decade, Erin Harbinson had three cervical cancer screenings giving her the all-clear, but all were incorrect. Members will be aware that that resulted in a major review of more than 17,000 results of smear tests that were undertaken by the Southern Health and Social Care Trust.

Laura Maguire is a 25-year-old woman who has been put in a medicated early menopause as she awaits surgery for endometriosis. Marie Mullan said that she waited 20 years for a diagnosis of endometriosis. She was told, mainly by male doctors, that it was just period pain and that she would have to live with it.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) said that, if those who were waiting across Northern Ireland's five health trusts were to stand shoulder to shoulder, the queue would be over two miles longer than it was in November 2024, stretching almost 15 miles. Those are some of the tragic and unacceptable examples of how women's healthcare has woefully failed. The lack of menopause provision in primary care, as mentioned by the motion's sponsor, is another shocking example of that.

Women in Northern Ireland also have fewer legal protections than their counterparts in GB. They are continually harmed by the impact of Brexit, and they were left out of adequate roles in public and political life during peace building, so this is about more than just waiting lists or service pressures. It is an entrenched issue, which must be addressed urgently by adopting a joined-up, collaborative approach across Health and other Departments. This is not about blame; rather, it is about accountability and action.

The motion does not ask for the impossible. It asks for transparency on the status, funding and implementation of the already promised action plan. It asks for:

within 12 months and for women's health to be "explicitly embedded" in primary care across the life course. It asks the Department to assess whether current provision is truly meeting its statutory duties. I urge the Minister to not only agree with those warm words but act on them.

Mr McGuigan: As a man, I am acutely aware that I will never personally experience many of the health challenges that are faced by women. However, through repeated debates in the Chamber, it has become impossible to ignore the challenges and consistently poor outcomes that women face when trying to access healthcare in the North, whether that is in endometriosis care, perinatal mental health services or the persistent inability to meet red-flag breast cancer referral targets. We are all too aware of the cervical screening failures and the mesh scandals.

While all of our waiting lists are unacceptably long, gynaecology waiting lists remain among the longest of any speciality, with over 52,000 women and girls waiting for a first consultant-led outpatient appointment. I recognise that many of the issues are not unique to here but, unlike the rest of Ireland and our neighbouring island, we still have no dedicated women's health strategy to address inequalities, despite years of assurances that one was being developed. Such a strategy is essential because women's health changes significantly across different ages and stages of life. Hormonal shifts influence reproductive health, perimenopause and menopause, each bringing distinct impacts on physical and mental well-being. Pregnancy, pregnancy loss and childbirth also have profound and long-lasting effects.

Those realities underline the need for a coherent, lifelong approach to women's health that ensures that perinatal and postnatal maternity care, along with wider reproductive health, are properly supported and that services, research and resources are aligned in order to tackle long-standing inequalities in a consistent and accountable way. Statistically, we also know that, although women live longer than men, their healthy life expectancy is falling. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency's (NISRA) most recent figures show a decline of almost two years for women over the past five years.

It should not require personal experience to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. It requires only empathy, fairness and a recognition that half of our population are not receiving the standard of care that they deserve.

Heart disease, as others have mentioned, remains one of the leading causes of death among women, yet women's symptoms often present differently from men's and are frequently missed. The British Heart Foundation estimates that 26,000 women here are living with coronary heart disease, and its research shows that women face disadvantage at every stage of the cardiac pathway. Those inequalities are further compounded by ethnicity and socio-economic status. Women are disproportionately affected by chronic pain and autoimmune conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, which are too often dismissed or misdiagnosed.

Cancers such as ovarian cancer often present with vague symptoms, making early diagnosis difficult and highlighting the need for better awareness, research and screening innovation.

The women's health action plan offers a real opportunity for the Minister and the Department to address those inequalities. The Minister has previously stated that the action plan, when published, will describe the wide range of policy and service development supporting women's health, what has been achieved to date and what is achievable in the years ahead with current resources. However, as demonstrated by the example of the mental health strategy, without sufficient funding, planned actions cannot move beyond good intentions. Women and girls deserve clarity, transparency and timelines. Women's health must be embedded across all services. This institution has statutory equality duties, including those under section 75. The Minister's own report last year highlighted the particular barriers faced by women and children in the immigration system when accessing healthcare. He has acknowledged the inequalities that exist between different groups of women. Addressing those disparities is a legal and moral obligation.

Finally, I recognise that women too often carry most of the weight for advocating for their own health needs. They should not have to. Gender equality in healthcare is not a women's issue; it is everyone's issue. The Minister is not here, but he must provide reassurance that women's health, having been left behind for so long, will now be prioritised in his budget and in the wider transformation of our health service.

Mr Gaston: I support this pointed motion calling for the Health Minister to bring forward a fully costed and time-bound women's health strategy within the next 12 months and before the end of the mandate.

I will begin by referring to a concerning statistic raised recently by my colleague Councillor Anna Henry when speaking about her personal experience. Anna highlighted the fact that nearly 12,000 women in the Northern Trust alone are currently waiting for a first consultation with a gynaecologist. That figure should stop every Member in the Chamber in their tracks and cause us to pause. That is not across Northern Ireland; it is in only one trust. We are also told that Northern Ireland has the worst gynaecology waiting lists anywhere in the United Kingdom. If every woman currently waiting for their first appointment stood shoulder to shoulder, the queue would stretch for more than 15 miles. That is the scale of the problem that we are dealing with in women's health service provision. Behind those numbers are women waiting in pain, women waiting for a diagnosis and women waiting for treatment that, in many cases, could dramatically improve their quality of life.

It is, therefore, entirely reasonable to ask how we have got to this point and reached a position where thousands of women in Northern Ireland are waiting for years simply to see a specialist. I must ask the Health Minister this question: where is Mr Swann's health strategy, which was promised in the House back in 2024? This debate cannot simply be another discussion about writing strategies or producing action plans and glossy documents. That time has long passed. If the Assembly is serious about women's health, the focus must be on reducing the waiting lists that are leaving women stuck in that 15-mile queue. Unless and until that changes, women across Northern Ireland will continue to experience a healthcare system that is simply not meeting them at their point of need. The motion shines a spotlight on where we are failing and where we must do better. That must start with the Minister coming to the House and telling us all what he is doing regarding women's health and updating us on where the 2024 strategy is.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for tabling the motion, and I welcome her back here and wish her well. Obviously, I wholeheartedly support the motion, and I do so as someone who represents a constituency where the consequences of a broken, underfunded health system are hardest felt. It is a shame that the Health Minister is not here today. I understand that he is sitting with that enemy of women Donald Trump, but he should be here listening to the debate and acting today.

Yesterday, I posted on social media an answer from the Health Minister to a question that I had asked about the number of women in my West Belfast constituency who are receiving treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis. Apparently, the Belfast Trust does not hold even that very basic information. It is said that you count what matters, so, clearly — disgracefully — women in that situation do not count.

In the past 24 hours, I have been inundated with comments, messages and emails from women in my constituency and beyond about the issue. Medical misogyny is deep, but I was genuinely taken aback by the scale of the number of people reaching out and getting in touch. I want to raise some of the issues that people raised with me. One woman, who waited years on a PCOS diagnosis, finally received a telephone appointment only to be told to get back in touch if she wanted to get pregnant. Nobody has followed up with her since — and that was almost five years ago. Another woman reports being bedridden for days on end due to endometriosis. Her community-based pain management group is a lifeline for her, and she said that she would not be here without it. Another woman waited 12 years for an endometriosis diagnosis, and — it is quite shocking even to say this, but it is what I was told — she still takes her husband with her to appointments because she wants to be taken seriously. She is not taken seriously by her medical practitioner. That is a disgraceful, Victorian-era attitude towards women.

Someone else said that she suffered with endometriosis all her life and was told that the pain was all in her head, something that, unfortunately, people are told regularly. It was not until she had a hysterectomy for cancer that her diagnosis was confirmed. Some women who were lucky enough to get a diagnosis report being left to deal with it, as the Member for North Belfast alluded to. With no help and no information, multiple women who live with serious, life-changing conditions such as PCOS reported that their pain was routinely dismissed. They were told, "Everything will settle down as you get older", which is patronising as well as dismissive. Someone else reported waiting two years for gynaecology surgery, only for all her symptoms to return and for her to go to the back of the queue and have to spend another two or three years on a waiting list. Others talked about a lack of data on the number of women being diagnosed with ADHD and autism. Another woman shared her traumatic experience of misdiagnosis of a mental health condition and the wide-reaching impacts that that has had on her family life.

When you take all that together, it is abundantly clear that working-class women in particular, and women juggling caring responsibilities and navigating poverty, are not getting the healthcare that they deserve. That is the predictable outcome of a capitalist, profit-driven model that has always treated women's health as a secondary concern at best. Let us call it another name and what it is: medical misogyny. For generations, women's pain has been dismissed, their symptoms minimised and their conditions under-researched, as Members have said. As has been said already, it is a disgrace that endometriosis patients are waiting 10 years for a diagnosis. Gynaecology waiting lists in Northern Ireland are among the longest in these islands. The Getting It Right First Time review confirmed what women already knew and have been saying for years: the system is not working for them.

This is the logical end point of a system that was never designed with women, and certainly not working-class and poor women, at its centre. While we debate strategies and action plans, the privatisation of women's healthcare quietly accelerates. When public waiting lists become intolerable, those who can afford it or who can get themselves into debt go private. Those who cannot, including thousands of women in West Belfast whom I represent, are left behind. England, Scotland, Wales and the South of Ireland all have dedicated women's health strategies, and the North does not. That is a political choice, and, once again, the North is a laggard. The Minister previously stated that he wants to deliver action, not another vague strategy of platitudes. To that end, he promised to produce a women's health action plan, but, as the motion rightly states, there is no:

in respect of the so-called action plan.

At the end of last year, the Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA) produced research that clearly identified what women actually need: accessibility, especially to GPs; continuity of care in order to build strong relationships with healthcare providers; and —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gerry, draw your remarks to a close, please.

Mr Carroll: — women's health hubs. I support the motion and commend the Member who tabled it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Gerry. I call on Claire Sugden to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Claire, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really appreciate everyone's contribution to the debate. I am heartened by the number of contributions from around the Chamber and the different perspectives, particularly those from many of the male contributors. I am particularly heartened by Timothy's contribution. The analogy that he drew with the 15-mile queue is quite sobering. If any of us were to stand in a queue of even half that length, we would raise questions about it. What is happening in Northern Ireland on women's health is shameful. Sadly, it is not a new issue. As Members have said, the issue was raised two years ago, and here we are, two years later, with promises of a women's action plan, not necessarily a women's health strategy, despite other jurisdictions in the UK and Ireland having one.

I appreciate that the Minister is not here: I considered not moving the motion, but, as an independent Member, I only get two shots at a motion in a mandate. I thought that it would be good to at least put the issues on record and follow-up where we need to. The Minister anticipated that he would not be here. He wrote to me, and I will talk to what he said in his letter. His party colleague Alan Chambers represented some of what he might have said, such as that we do not need shiny documents or strategies. The purpose of a strategy is to join the dots, to look at the issue in a way that will save our health system some money and ensure that the life course of women is much more the way that it needs to be.

I will give you an example. At age 16, women are offered a contraceptive called Depo-Provera, which weakens bone health. At that age, they are given something that, when they reach 70 or 80 years of age, will have a detrimental impact on their life. At 16 years old, they do not get to have those conversations about what might happen later in life. That is why a women's health strategy is important. What we do at 16 has an impact later in life. At my age — 39 — I think that some of the decisions that I made at 16, 17 or 18 might have been different had I been given information that I was not given at those ages.

I cannot stress the importance of looking at a strategy as being not just a shiny document but a method for women's health. We cannot consider each stage of a woman's life separately: it flows because of our hormones and because what happens to us at 16 affects what happens to us at 39, 49 and 59. That is why this is so important, why every other jurisdiction on these islands has done something about it, and we why we are failing by not doing something about it.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking the intervention. On that very point, it is important to have such a document in order to address the institutional and medical misogyny that the Member who spoke previously mentioned. To take only one instance that Órlaithí Flynn mentioned, the mesh was used as a last resort on men with prostate issues, but it was used as the cheap option for women with any prolapse issues. That tells us all that we need to know about medical and institutional misogyny.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate that point, and it is important that we put those things on record and do not let the mistakes of the past be repeated. That is what we are at risk of doing if we do not take this issue seriously.

Having sat in the Chamber for nearly 12 years, I know that we regularly hear about these issues, but nothing changes. The motion is about not just the document but its measures being costed, transparency and holding the Minister to account on what, ultimately, is his responsibility. I have no doubt that we will not get this strategy within 12 months. I put that ask out there because I do not think it unreasonable to expect it. I was a Minister in Government, and I know that, if the Health Minister wanted to do this, he could. It could be done very quickly: Ministers certainly do things when it suits them. It is important to have this conversation to put pressure on the Minister and the wider Northern Ireland Executive: they all sit around the Executive table, and they could be having these conversations.

However, to be fair to the Minister, in anticipation of this debate, he wrote to me last week to say that he would not be available because he is in Washington today. He acknowledged many of the issues that Members have raised. He referenced disparities in women's health outcomes, pressures on services and the need to improve support across a range of areas, including menopause, endometriosis and perinatal mental health.

As I said, the acknowledgement is important; however, acknowledging the issue and addressing it are not the same thing.

The Minister's letter to me also referred to the women's health action plan and the development of a strategic framework, yet the progress remains unclear, as other Members have said. I do not sit on the Health Committee, but I imagine that those who do are not aware of the progress that has been made either. What funding has been attached to the work? To be honest, none of the work will progress if there is no money. Crucially, what is the timeline? That is why the motion calls for clarity and asks for:

and the development of:

The other important point that I wanted to include in the motion is that we should consider whether the current system meets our equality obligations under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. Section 75 requires public authorities to have:

Given the disparities in women's health outcomes and access to services that we have discussed today, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the current approach meets our obligations. I appreciate that other Members have talked to that, and Nuala McAllister gave an example about the treatment of vasectomy versus childbirth. After I had my daughter, my husband was not allowed to visit me. I had to care for the newborn baby even though I might have had only half an hour's sleep, yet we recommend that men put their feet up. Absolutely, they should do that, but, when you have given birth, you need that and more.

I will reference some of the contributions. Órlaithí Flynn talked about transvaginal mesh, and that issue has rumbled on for such a long time. Many Members will have constituents who have suffered with that, and the issue will come and go and be resolved, but the pain that those women suffer because of scar tissue and other problems will not. We are not giving the issue the attention that it needs, certainly not the follow-up issue, particularly if those women are stuck on waiting lists like everyone else.

Endometriosis was mentioned a lot. Diane Dodds talked about women having to wait 10 years, which is extraordinary. Endometriosis is incredibly painful, and it is not just young women who suffer from it but women of all ages up to menopausal age. What are we doing if we are not supporting the people who need the health service?

The mother-and-baby unit is another issue that has rumbled on, and that is not acceptable. It is inconceivable that a mother would be separated from her baby, particularly at a traumatic time.

I appreciate that Members have raised issues, and we could talk all day about those issues, but we should not do that: we should just get the work done. When the Health Minister comes back, we should follow up with him to ensure that the work happens, and we should hold him and his predecessor to account for the promises that they have made.

The motion refers to the stakeholders and the people whom the issue affects. I appreciate the women's group in Derry that looked at the issues. It will form part of the women's action plan, but, again, we need to talk to girls, mothers, perimenopausal women, menopausal women and older women. We need to support women who are past the point of menopause, and we can forget that, even in this debate. Over the past year, I have worked on the issue of osteoporosis. Our services are shockingly bad. I have challenged the Minister about his approach to osteoporosis, because we are not providing a service to most of the people who have osteoporosis, who are mainly older women. To me, that is an equality issue.

Linda Dillon said that people are needlessly dying, and that is sad and shameful. It comes back to the point that we should not assume that women's health is just about gynaecology, pregnancy and menopause. It is also about all the health problems that men also suffer from, but women do not get the support that they need, because the services were designed by men.

I could talk about women's health all day. We should continue to talk about it. If this debate happens again in a number of months, that will be important. Until we see action and get to a point where we start to serve half the population in the way that we are here to do, we need to keep talking.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We will just take our ease for a few moments while we hand over.

Mr Kearney: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. Three amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 45 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr Kearney: The decision by the United States and Israel to launch unprovoked military operations against Iran is a flagrant violation of the United Nations charter and international law. It is the second time in nine months that America has begun a war in the midst of a live political negotiation. Just days before it began, the US-Iran nuclear talks were concluding in Geneva under Omani mediation. To be clear, launching strikes during active negotiations violates the principle of good faith set out in article 2 of the UN charter. Yet again, the actions of the United States and Israeli Governments have fundamentally damaged the multilateral system.

Sinn Féin will support the Alliance amendment, which is a considered contribution to this hugely important issue. We will not support the SDLP amendment, because it is the opposite of that common-sense approach.

The strikes on Iran are part of a broader pattern of illegal unilateral actions by the United States and Israel. The expansionist objectives of the United States and its Zionist ally are once again pushing the Middle East towards an abyss. Their war is illegal. It is not a legitimate response to the human rights violations, lack of democracy and breaches of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that have been taking place in Iran. The glaring irony of the military action is that the international institutions, laws and standards required to address the breaches of human rights in Iran are the very institutions, laws and standards that are now being violated by the illegal actions of the United States and Israel.

The initial so-called justification for the US-Israeli strikes on Iran does not stand up to objective scrutiny. It is mere months since the United States president declared that Iran's nuclear programme had been completely obliterated, countering any suggestion of an imminent threat. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had already verified that no nuclear weapon capacity existed or was being developed.

Remember the lies that were told to us all about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Predictably, the conflict has now spiralled out of control, with indiscriminate mass killings and destruction, such as at the elementary school in Minab. The murder of the children in Minab, the attacks on hospitals and all forms of civilian infrastructure and the displacement of over 3·2 million people in Iran constitute war crimes. They are the consequences of an Administration who do not consider themselves accountable to international law.

The British Government's decision to join the US-Israeli war is equally reckless. It is obvious from the contradictory messaging from the US Administration that the Americans have started a war with no sense of how it will finish. The spectre of catastrophic wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya once again looms large. Alongside the ongoing carpet bombing of Iran, Israel has mounted sustained air and ground attacks against Lebanon that have displaced nearly one million people. In reaction, Iran has mounted missile attacks against and violated the national sovereignty of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar. Hundreds of civilians are being killed in Iran, Lebanon, Israel and elsewhere, and tens of thousands have been injured across the region. Where will it stop? Huge numbers of Irish and British citizens work, live and holiday in Gulf States such as UAE and Qatar.

The DUP has tried to manufacture a cynical political controversy by attacking First Minister Michelle O'Neill's decision not to attend the British Government's confidential security briefings. Michelle O'Neill made the right decision. The focus of our power-sharing Executive should be on international law and humanitarian priorities and securing the safety of Irish and British citizens —

Mr Brooks: That is what the briefing was about.

Mr Kearney: — not being briefed on military manoeuvres

as the DUP's deputy First Minister advised us.

Meanwhile, the attacks by all sides have disrupted liquefied gas production and global oil and energy supplies [Interruption.]

Petrol, diesel and oil heating costs here have already dramatically increased. That will lead to increased shop prices for local consumers in the North. Cost-of-living pressures for workers and families are becoming more extreme while big businesses continue to make profits. Capitalism always prospers in times of war. In the midst of those intense pressures for workers and families, a former DUP leader, Arlene Foster, has pressed for welfare cuts in order to pay for weapons of mass destruction for the British state. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the DUP favours despicable warmongering and is willing to have the most vulnerable pay the price for that.

Once again, political unionism is an outlier in relation to human rights, diplomacy and global relations [Interruption.]

The duplicity of some unionist representatives in the Assembly and the Executive is absolutely appalling. They abuse these political institutions to continuously rake up the past of our own political conflict [Interruption.]

They purport to hold a higher morality than everyone else while shamefully warmongering, denying genocide and championing the same disregard for international law as American imperialists and Israeli Zionists.

Ordinary Iranian families and other citizens across the Gulf region did not choose the war, but they will now pay the human cost. In Ireland, workers and families will suffer a huge financial cost as they struggle to pay higher energy and food bills. Israel is already engaged in a genocide in Gaza and an illegal occupation of the West Bank. The current expansion of its military aggression beyond Palestine will further destabilise the Middle East.

The United States and Israel have a long and destructive record of military interference in the Middle East [Interruption.]

Those states are shredding the international rules-based order, and their aggression is pushing the rest of the world into a dangerous place where rules no longer matter and the law of the jungle prevails.

There must be an immediate de-escalation and a permanent end to all hostilities. There is no alternative to political dialogue, diplomacy, the primacy of international law

and a commitment to peaceful coexistence. Sinn Féin will not be in any way complicit in Britain's latest Middle East war alongside the Americans and Israelis. The Irish Government and the Assembly must become voices for peace, diplomacy

and adherence to the principle of self-determination and the primacy of international law [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we move on, I will say that I am aware, as are Members, of the need for robust debate in the Chamber. That has been acknowledged many times. I think, however, that Members know what the line is between being robust and being rude. Members will be heard in the debate from wherever they speak in the Chamber. There is a level of robustness and interruption that will not be tolerated, and that applies across the Chamber.

I call Doug Beattie to move amendment No 1, and I ask Members to keep in mind what I have just said.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Th Member will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that there is no shouting at me, as I am deaf in one ear and do not hear great.

I am not surprised that there is a bit of Brit-bashing being thrown into the debate, as that is always the case. We seem, however, to forget — Members over there have certainly forgotten — that Irish airspace and Shannon Airport have, for many years, been used for the movement of personnel, equipment and ammunition from the United States to the Middle East and north Africa. I do not see Members on the other side of the House standing up to complain about that. Neutral? Really?

It is worth noting that, in Congress in 2002, the House of Representatives' International Relations Committee placed the IRA in a global terrorist network along with Iran. There is clear evidence and intelligence of a link between Hezbollah and the IRA. Released state papers show that even the Irish Government had concerns about Iran's backing of the IRA. I therefore have to ask what the motives are behind motion and whether Sinn Féin is willing to declare an interest.

It is really important not to see this as a Trump war. If we see it as a Trump war, we would change our opinion every 20 minutes; that is just the nature of the man. We have to analyse it far more deeply. Nobody wants war. It comes at us in many varied and complicated ways and for many varied and complicated reasons. This is a limited and targeted conflict to stop what would become a regional conflict, something that Iran is desperate for. Make no mistake: it is not a regional conflict now. We will know when it is. Iran is not an innocent victim responding to aggression: that is just strategic fiction. The reality is that the Islamic Republic of Iran bears substantial culpability for the present conflict. Its guilt is not merely over retaliatory strikes but over a deliberate, decades-long strategy of escalation through proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) literally travels the globe exporting terrorism. It is a doctrine that is known as "forward defence". By creating conflict and destabilisation in other countries via global terrorism, it creates internal defence. It relies on Russia and North Korea for support, and that tells us all that we need to know.

The attacks by the US and Israel on 28 February were not the starting point of the conflict. Iran has been destabilising the region for decades and has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons along the way. Members should take their mind away from intercontinental ballistic nuclear weapons: we are talking about small, tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons that can fit in a suitcase.

Iran's aim is to be the dominant force in the region. Under its dominance, Israel would not have a right to exist.

It is worth noting Iran's systemic and deeply institutionalised human rights abuses against its own people, in particular women. The regime enforces mandatory veiling through laws such as the Noor plan. It uses surveillance and has a violent morality police, which makes clandestine arrests and even targets girls as young as 15, in order to suppress dissent. Women face state-organised discrimination in their legal status, employment and education. Activism is often criminalised as foreign agent activity. The crackdown on the Women, Life, Freedom movement has been brutal. So, I cannot shed a tear for the Iranian regime, but I can shed a tear for their people, who are being oppressed by that regime. UN experts have documented the use of lethal force, torture and sexual violence against protesters, with thousands, including children, killed in recent protests alone. Collectively, those documented patterns, including recent mass killings, have led UN investigators to conclude that some Iranian state actions "amount to crimes against humanity".

The prosecution of the war, not the reasons for it, are of concern. We have seen limited aims and shifting mission statements, which have led to Iran's taking the limited economic initiative of closing the Strait of Hormuz. The US was not wrong to go in, but it did not go in with a clear plan. The closure of the strait is not a defensive action; it is a global reaction. It is economic terrorism, and it has an effect on people across the globe through increased fuel costs.

One of the questions that we have to ask —.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. If I understand the Member correctly, he does not object to the idea of the US's taking some action, but he thinks that the aims have been vague or shifting. I do not want to misquote him. Does he not think — I will reflect in my remarks what I think of the war — that the US should have planned for the Iranians closing down the Strait of Hormuz, since they said many times that they would do that?

Mr Beattie: Yes, of course. In-depth planning should have been done, and there should have been a clear set of aims for what they are trying to achieve. That is about the prosecution of the conflict. That is not to say that it was not right to go in and take Iran to task for what it was doing: destabilising the region through decades and decades of global terrorism.

One of the questions that we have to ask ourselves is this: why were we not prepared? It is not that it has not happened before. We had fuel shortages after Russia invaded Ukraine. The destabilisation in the Middle East over the past three years has led to such shortages. We knew that that was happening, yet we were not prepared. Now we are complaining and trying to do crisis planning in Northern Ireland because fuel prices have gone up. We should have looked at that. Our First Minister, given that she is the First Minister, should have looked it.

It is incumbent on the US and Israel Administrations to end the conflict as soon as possible. While prosecuting it, they must adhere to the laws of armed conflict. We hear the term "war crimes" being thrown about as a strapline. That is all it is. People use it as a strapline, and it disgusts me when they do so. However, it is still a breach of the laws of armed conflict. Administrations have to adhere to the laws of armed conflict. The US and Israel are no different from anybody else. Just so we are aware, terrorists are also bound by the laws of armed conflict.

All wars and conflicts end in negotiation. I hope that the situation in the Middle East de-escalates soon. I hope that the fighting stops. I hope that the protagonists can get around a table and start to negotiate. It is in the hands of Iran to stop global terrorism and to stop exporting it. It is in the hands of Iran to stop trying to gain nuclear weapons. It is that simple.

Iran could do that tomorrow. In truth, it needs to do it tomorrow, because it is the Iranian people who are suffering during the conflict.

We can stand here and complain as much as we want to, but it will not make a bit of difference to what is going on in the Middle East — not one bit of difference. It might make us feel good, but it will make no difference there. Nobody wants war. It is not a video game. I do not want it. I have been there; I have seen it; and the people who suffer most are the innocent civilians. They are suffering. They are suffering across the region — in the Gulf States, in Iran and in Israel. The sooner we get an end to the conflict, the better, but the bottom line is that Iran cannot be allowed to continue doing what it is doing, and we cannot let global terrorism hold us all to ransom.

Ms Nicholl: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak.

There has been a lot of criticism recently about the Assembly focusing on international issues. Members know that we talk about many issues. It is important that we have those discussions. It is important for a number of reasons. The reality is that we cannot separate ourselves from global events that directly affect us. What happens across the world invariably reaches into our communities, and the war that is happening in the Middle East is a stark example. It is affecting our citizens who are living and travelling in the region. I know that many MLAs, including me, were in touch with people who were on holiday in Dubai. They were suddenly fearful and wondered how they were going to get back. We were also in touch with members of our community whose family members were there and had no idea what the future held. It was a scary time for them. The driving up of energy and fuel prices for households and businesses here is another example of why it is relevant. I also remind Members that members of those communities live here. They are our constituents, and they want us to speak up.

There is another point that we do not focus on often. Often, the Galleries are filled with visitors from countries all over the world, such as Colombia and Palestine — places that are experiencing conflict. They come to learn from how we do politics here. They come to see how, since the Good Friday Agreement, we have learned, despite our diametrically opposed views on so many things, to work together. As a place that has benefited from the time and consideration of other countries, it is important that we speak with one voice about peace.

We have a tendency to view conflict through the lens of our own understanding of it. That is a human instinct, but, as legislators, we should not do that. Everything that we do should be rooted in our common values of a shared desire for peace, democracy and respect for human rights and international law. That is what the Alliance Party amendment seeks to clarify: multiple things can be true at once.

I have had the privilege of working with many Iranians in Northern Ireland. I went into the hotels many times; Gerry Carroll and I both did. I remember meeting an Iranian man who had been a prisoner for a number of years. I saw his medical records. What he went through was an example of the very worst of what people can do to one another. The Iranian regime is responsible for committing some of the worst atrocities on its people, particularly women. I have met Iranian women here. What they have been through is incomprehensible. You can condemn what has happened to Iranian people — you should — but, at the same time, you can condemn the US and Israel's attack on Iran.

This is a Trump war. The ayatollah was an 86-year-old man. There had been planning for his succession for a long time. There are wars and human rights violations going on everywhere else in the world. Let us not kid ourselves: this is about power and oil, not saving the people of Iran. If it were about that, they would have had a plan in place. There was no plan. You just need to listen to Trump officials to hear six different rationales for the bombing of Iran. It is nonsensical.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Nicholl: Go ahead.

Mr Brooks: The Member engages in humanitarian causes across the world, and I understand that she has a passion for that. Has she not seen, as I have, the thousands of people on the streets of Iran and across the world celebrating the death of the ayatollah? Has she not seen what it meant to them and the freedom that, they hope, will come from that at some stage? Conflict is the only way in which an ayatollah — a supreme leader — will be removed, whether that is as a result of domestic or other powers.

Ms Nicholl: I have seen people celebrating across the world, and I understand why. When you have lived under an oppressive regime and have had family members murdered by that regime and you are given an ounce of hope, you will, of course, cling to that. Who has replaced him? His son. It will just be more and more of the same.

I completely understand that point, and I believe that we should listen to people. How many times have I spoken here about the Palestinian people? Members have said, "What about Sudan?", so I organised an event with members of the Sudanese community, but no one came to it. I talk to people and listen to their lived experiences, and that is how I take my positions. I completely agree that the Iranian regime is guilty of some of the worst possible things, but what America has done is also awful. You can hold those two views at the same time, and we should. We should be able to condemn the US/Israeli strikes and the retaliatory strikes conducted by Iran across the region. That is what, we felt, was missing from the original motion, and we thought that it was important to include that.

There is another point that I want to make clear, and we have included it in our amendment. It is about the lack of an international relations strategy. It is true that we have different views on things; we know that well. However, we have one Executive, and we need to speak with one voice. That is why Michelle O'Neill was not right to be out of that meeting. You cannot be a Minister for all and not be in the room. My constituents just wanted their Executive to speak with one voice and say, "Here is the information. This is what you need". We need to have a plan for how we talk about these things with one voice. That leadership is so important. We will have different opinions on different policies, but, when it comes to international relations, we really need a strategy for how we operate on the international stage. That would provide a solid basis for engagement on an ethical basis. I have already spoken about the need for a clear and unified approach and the fact that people want to see their political leaders working together for the common good, especially on significant international issues. We are contacted by constituents every day who want us to use our platform to speak out for human rights in whatever way we can.

We support parts of the UUP amendment, including the importance of recognising human rights abuses in Iran and support for the armed forces. However, the removal of the call for an immediate end to the conflict indicates that the strikes are justified, and that means that we cannot support the amendment, particularly because it also removes the statement about the self-determination of the Iranian people. For us, that is incredibly important.

I spoke about how I have been working with the Iranian community. They are our constituents, and we have responsibilities to engage with their concerns and advocate on their behalf. It is so important that the future of the Iranian people remains in the hands of the Iranian people. There is no long-term plan for what will happen next for Iran. The US does not seem to know what it will do tomorrow, never mind having a long-term plan for the peace and prosperity of the Iranian people. I do not know about you, but it feels as though we are on the edge of something now in the world and that, once we go beyond it, we may not come back very quickly. I feel scared about the state of the world and where we are, and the only way that we can come back from that is by having dialogue, adhering to international law, engaging in diplomacy and embedding our common humanity back into the centre of politics at all levels. We are all on this one planet together, you know? We all have our common humanity, but we lose sight of that so often, and, when we lose sight of our humanity, awful things happen.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Nicholl: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Dickson: The Member makes an important point. The moment that the world lifts its head away from the rules-based order that brought us to where we have been since the Second World War and proceeds without respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, we will enter into the anarchy of what the American regime, under its current president, has been doing to all of us. We must re-centre this world back into human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Ms Nicholl: I could not agree more with my colleague. I have two work experience students in my office, Oisin and Lewis. They were doing some work on my research today, and that was their point: if we step away from the rules-based order, we are very much at risk. We must stand for human rights, uphold international law and ensure that the voices of the Iranian people are central to any peaceful future.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move amendment No 3:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2 or amendment No 3. If amendment No 1 is not made, the Question will put on amendment No 2, and if that is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 3.

Mr O'Toole, you have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 3 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes, as I said before.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that my party's amendment has been selected and that we are debating this subject tonight. We agree with the vast majority of what is in the motion. I am glad that it was moved.

Although this is a devolved region in a part of the world that is distant from where these lives are being lost and this conflict is happening, we do, perhaps, have some claim to being heard in debates like this — a little more than that of other small devolved regions — which is that, as other Members have said, we are the product of a conflict resolution process. We are, in a sense, as an Assembly — as divided, dysfunctional and occasionally disreputable as we are — an embodiment of politics as an alternative to violence. That is not to overstate or simplify what is at stake in this conflict or any other armed conflict around the world, but it is to say that, as elected representatives, we should, at all times, do everything that we can, here and everywhere, to promote the alternatives to armed conflict of dialogue, democracy and diplomacy.

Most people and parties in the Chamber, in different ways and from entirely different political traditions — my party has always been a party of peace. There are circumstances in which armed conflict has, in human history, been inevitable or unavoidable. Without talking about our own conflict or, indeed, other conflicts that have happened more recently, it is fair to say that this particular conflict is 100 million miles from being a conflict that could be argued to have been unavoidable, let alone justifiable. Other Members who are, perhaps, a little more — I do not want to put words in Mr Beattie's mouth — ambivalent towards, or even supportive of, the idea of armed action against the Iranian regime — I presume that DUP Members will get up to articulate similar positions — will have to justify how bombing a Middle Eastern country from the sky, which has been tried repeatedly over recent decades — I am now old enough to remember what happened in 2003 and the decade that followed in Iraq and, before that, Afghanistan — is going to lead to a stable, peaceful outcome for the people of Iran, whom they claim to support. While many Iranians are unbelievably opposed to the ayatollahs and have had to live under the Iranian regime, I am completely unclear as to how the actions of Trump and his regime, and the lawless regime of Netanyahu and Israel, and their reckless, lawless and apparently meaningless — perhaps "senseless" is a better way to put it — intervention in Iran is going to lead to a better outcome for the people of Iran. I am happy to give way to any Member who wants to explain that to me because, at the minute, I am utterly at a loss. OK, fine.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to give way to Mr Brooks.

Mr Brooks: What the action certainly has done is degrade Iran's ability to strike other countries in the region. It has taken out around 80% of Iran's missile launch pads and degraded its ability to enrich uranium above 60%, which is not needed at a civil level. There are many ways in which it has made Iran a much lesser threat to countries in the region and others across the world.

Mr O'Toole: The counterpoint to that is that what has happened is that the Iranian regime has dug in. It is widely accepted that the Iranian regime, of which I am no supporter — let me be clear: I would rather that the ayatollahs were not in power — has fairly resolutely dug in and is squeezing America and other powers through the Strait of Hormuz, using that economic power to place the US under extreme pressure. Let us be clear: we and our constituents are feeling that at the petrol pumps and in our oil tanks through the cost-of-living crisis that is being imposed on us by Trump's attacks. I have not seen any kind of logical explanation of how that will lead to a better outcome, and I am afraid that I did not hear it from Mr Brooks. Of course, it is not just that logic and Donald Trump are not close neighbours; they are complete strangers.

Let me be clear that the US's contribution to world affairs has been, shall we say, mixed in the sense that it has disrupted democracies for its own ends but also has been a leader in democracy at times and offered hope to the world. It is certainly now doing the former, rather than the latter. There is no sense that the lunatic Donald Trump — that is what he is, and I do not think that anyone should be coy any more about saying that — is in any way pursuing anything approaching not just a strategy of peace or support for the people of Iran but a coherent or comprehensible foreign policy or defence policy. The horror of bombing schools and claiming that killing innocent people is part of a logical and coherent strategy is grotesque, notwithstanding the grotesque actions of the Iranian regime in shooting tens of thousands of its own people who resisted its oppression. To stand here and debate the actions of the Trump regime as if it were part of a logical or comprehensible strategy feels absurd at times, but, of course, we have to do it because our constituents are living with the consequences.

That brings me on to the purpose of our amendment, which is not to negate the condemnation of Trump and Israel's actions, which is welcome in the original motion and Alliance's amendment, but to bring it back home, since the original motion talks about the impact on households in the North. Through our amendment, we perform our role as the official Opposition and make no bones about doing that. It says that our view is that the Executive's response has been incoherent and fractious. The local Executive are responsible for offering clear and coherent leadership to the public, but their response has not been what it should have been in that.

When Donald Trump first launched his attack on Iran just over a fortnight ago, it was clear that there would be a spike in the oil price. Iran is one of the major oil producers, and it controls the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of global oil exports move. It was inevitable that the price of Brent crude was going to spike. We did not know how long that would last. It has now gone on for a fortnight. It appears that it will go on a lot longer, even if Trump were to attempt to de-escalate, and he does not appear to be doing that now. Even if there is a de-escalation, there is increased geopolitical instability. As Kate Nicholl said, we do not know how long that will go on for. Many of us are fearful about the world writ large. The Executive have no control over that. Let us be clear that what we say in the Chamber or what the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or any Minister does will not influence that. That does not mean that our voice is meaningless, but it means that the primary focus of the Executive should have been to respect that there will be complete disagreements on the merit of the action, though I genuinely do not understand how any unionist politician can sensibly and seriously say after the past fortnight that they think that any of this is a good idea, given the impact on their constituents. The response of local Ministers should have been to say, "We are downstream of the crisis. We probably have the largest proportion of home heating oil usage in Europe, let alone these islands, so we need a plan and a response".

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will take an intervention in one second.

Local Ministers should have said, "We will need financial support from the UK Government, but we need to understand what our response is going to be and what support we would like to be able to offer our people". That response did not happen. In fact, we saw continual infighting between those parties. That is what our amendment says, and I do not think that it is unreasonable.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks for giving way. You have articulated your view that you cannot comprehend or agree with the position laid out by the Ulster Unionist Party thus far and the view by the Member from the DUP and that you agree with the body of our motion, yet you expect us to have a united front with those people. Can you explain to me how we would get a united position in the Executive?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to have taken that intervention, because I did not say that you should have a united position in any way on Trump's actions in Iran. I would not expect that at all, neither would I expect you to have a united perspective on anything that Trump does, Israel and its genocide, Brexit or any other number of controversial international positions. What I expect and what the public should expect is that the two parties do their best to arrive at a joint position on the kind of intervention that they would like to see; for example, that the UK Government give financial support in relation to home heating oil.

That is distinct. It is a downstream consequence, in the same way in which there needs to be an agreed position on the consequences of the travel disruption for British and Irish citizens. That is perfectly clear. I do not think that it is that difficult to understand that the Executive can agree a position on a local impact and agree on a policy response that is distinct from their agreeing with the initial illegal action. That has not happened yet from the Executive. That is all that our amendment calls out. I know that the fact that we are willing to make such points makes some people uncomfortable, but that is our job as the official Opposition.

I will return to the main thrust of the motion. The destabilisation visited on the region by Trump and his lawless and, frankly, lunatic regime will, I hope, end quickly. If, however, it does not, we will need a joined-up and coherent response to the downstream consequences locally, even if we profoundly disagree with those in the Chamber who inexplicably and, frankly, insanely continue to support his reckless actions.

Mr Brooks: At the outset, I declare my previously registered visit to Israel through the Israeli embassy in London.

The text of the motion is dripping in Sinn Féin's sanctimonious hypocrisy to which we have become far too desensitised in the Chamber. It is a party that has had a private army, which bombed, murdered and maimed in this place, yet it wishes to lecture the rest of us on international law and diplomacy.

On Saturday, I was on the Shankill Road for a St Patrick's Day event, and I passed the site of the Shankill bomb.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: No, I will not.

I watched the parade just across from the memorial to those who lost their lives in the Bayardo Bar bomb attack. The families who lost loved ones in those two tragedies might ask what business Sinn Féin, which continues to lionise those who murdered men, women and children, has feigning some respect for life, law and peace. The motion states that the Assembly:

They might ask how loud or visible Sinn Féin was when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was mass-murdering tens of thousands of his own citizens in recent months for dissenting.

In Northern Ireland, we know all too well the cost of violence and the perils of extremism. We recognise that there comes a time when action must be taken against those who reject peace and embrace intimidation. We understand the anguish of communities that face threats from militias backed by Tehran. We know the fear felt by Jewish communities who are under constant missile bombardment from Iranian proxies.

I disagree with nationalists on Palestine, and, having witnessed last week the uncensored filming of some of the barbarity that Iranian proxies carried out on 7 October, I know with whom I stand. It is, however, astounding to me that nationalists, some of whom I hear at the Education Committee each week railing against faith and culture in our schools, find themselves committing to apologism for an oppressive Islamic regime whose vile treatment of women is a matter of record and whose oppression and murder of their own people has been witnessed at its most acute in recent months. Those murders were, largely, carried out by the IRGC. The IRGC targets not only its own people but Jewish communities here in the UK, and the UK Government should not hesitate to designate it as a terrorist organisation.

It seems that loathing of Israel is so great that even the most evil of actors can be excused. Before Members opposite intervene to distance themselves from that, let me be clear: this is apologism for the status quo in Iran. You do not get to say —.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes, I will.

Mr Carroll: Does the Member's criticism extend to Saudi Arabia as well?

Mr Brooks: A number of players in the region have human rights issues to respond to.

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

Mr Brooks: You do not get to say, though, that you are championing women's rights, sending love and light, no doubt, across the globe, when you then come to this place and repeat Iranian talking points in order to frustrate the hopes of the women of Iran, and the people of Iran generally, to throw off the shackles of an extreme Shiite Islamist regime.

The Iranian regime has, for decades, sought to destabilise the Middle East, foster terror and hold millions of voices in chains. Many thousands of ordinary people caught between oppression and fear will privately be celebrating the weakening of a regime that has silenced dissent and crushed protest with lethal force. Talk of "self-determination" in the motion is disingenuous or, at best, naive nonsense.

Diplomacy has routinely failed. Iran continues to seek to enrich uranium far beyond what is required for civil uses. It has restored the capacity to produce over 170 long-range missiles a month. It has continued to weaponise terrorist proxies across the region against Israel, against shipping in the region and against allies. Members here talk of UN charters, but I have to ask what the UN has done to meaningfully change the destiny of the Iranian people, including the women of Iran, as they have been slaughtered. Fancy words, tough talk and harsh letters have proven fruitless. The peaceful, democratic solutions have not led to the freedom of the Iranian people, just as UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon have proved as useful as a chocolate fireguard in defending the communities of Israel from Hezbollah attack. If the UN is continually disregarded and disrespected, that is not least because it has repeatedly shown itself to be toothless and impotent in dealing with threats.

Speaking of toothlessness, I have criticised the Republic of Ireland's lack of defence investment on a number of occasions in this place, but I can say that, on all fronts, the British Government's response to this situation has been lamentable. It has highlighted the sore need to rebuild our armed forces to reflect and enable the strength and ability of those who serve. We welcome the commitment to increased defence spending, but, if we only plan to get to 2·5% by 2027, that is not enough. It is unfortunate that successive Governments have failed to increase defence spending adequately. We will continue to urge the Government to go faster in that regard.

Members on the opposite Benches may have missed me say earlier that hordes of Iranian people at home and abroad have openly celebrated the downfall and death of the Ayatollah. They want their country back; they want freedom — freedom that UN diplomacy has shown no ability whatsoever to deliver. Those who speak against military action, whether they accept it or not —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Sheehan: When the previous contributor started talking about private armies, I thought for a second that he was going to tell us about his party's private army, Ulster Resistance, and the shipment of weapons that it brought in from the apartheid regime in South Africa — weapons that were used to murder hundreds of innocent Catholics. Members of your party were dancing around in their pink berets. If I had not known better, I might have thought that they were going to a gay pride parade.

Just over two weeks ago, we witnessed unprovoked military attacks by the US and Israel on Iran, which were a clear breach of international law. What makes those attacks even more alarming is the context in which they occurred: at the time, the US was sitting at the negotiation table with Iran in talks that were facilitated by Oman. Launching military strikes during negotiations represents a profound act of bad faith, and that was the second such act that we have seen in the past nine months.

What has followed has been an indiscriminate bombing campaign, including attacks that have impacted civilian populations. One of the darkest moments came with the bombing of a school where more than 160 children — young girls — were killed while sitting in their classrooms. I have not heard anybody from the DUP condemn that yet. It is difficult to imagine a more horrific act. Initially, the US denied responsibility, yet emerging evidence points to a US attack that destroyed that school and murdered the children.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for giving way. It is absolutely disgusting to see the DUP and others parroting the US lie that this war is somehow about advancing women's rights, when no woman has ever been freed by US bombs. Perhaps when they are making their winding-up speeches, those Members can tell us what the murder of 150 schoolgirls did to advance women's rights in Iran.

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

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat.

I agree with everything that the Member said. The scale of destruction is staggering. Reports in the 'Financial Times' have indicated that the US/Israeli assault has bombed more than 20,000 non-military buildings across Iran. Of those, more than 17,000 are believed to be residential homes. It appears that attacking children in their schools was not enough; they are also followed to their homes.

When the Canadian Prime Minister spoke in Davos recently, he made a striking admission. He said that the story of the so-called international rules-based order was "partially false" and:

When we look at the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and now this illegal attack on Iran, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue otherwise.

For Palestinians and for Iranians, this so-called rules-based order does not appear to protect them.

What is, perhaps, even more shocking is what has happened to those who attempt to uphold international law. Individuals who speak out are being attacked, silenced and sanctioned. From the UN's special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, who has called out Israel's illegal actions in Palestine, to judges of the International Criminal Court investigating Israeli war crimes, we have seen sanctions placed upon them and clear attempts to silence and intimidate them and stop their work. Those attempting to uphold the law are punished while those who break it are aided and supported in carrying out further acts of violence — a further demonstration that international law does not apply equally.

Meanwhile, the situation in Iran and across the broader region is spiralling with no clear end in sight. There is no plan and no pathway to peace, only the certainty of further death, destruction and instability. Those actions are not without consequences here at home. We already see spiralling fuel costs, particularly for home heating oil. For more than half a million homes and struggling families, those rising prices present very real hardship. Home heating oil has more than doubled in price — a direct consequence of this war, compounded by multinational corporations exploiting the situation and profiteering off the backs of ordinary people. If this continues, we know exactly what will follow: higher inflation, rising interest rates and even greater pressure on the daily cost of living.

Sinn Féin's focus has remained clear. First, on the human impact of this war on the Iranian people, we have called for a complete cessation of hostilities, a return to negotiations and adherence to international law. Secondly, on the economic impact here at home, we have called for urgent and meaningful financial support to help struggling families to deal with those huge price increases. I contrast that with the approach taken by others in the Chamber. Last Monday, they were cheerleaders for this illegal war. On Tuesday, they suddenly realised the consequences and attempted to back-pedal. By Wednesday, we saw a strategy of distraction and misinformation, and, by Thursday, those tactics had been exposed. It reminds me of the story of the emperor's new clothes: a case of collective delusion and too much pride to admit that they got it wrong.

Instead, speaking honestly about what this war is doing, the truth is simple: this war is wrong, both legally and morally. We will not be complicit in it. It is hurting people, it is destructive and has no end in sight. The people of Ireland understand something that the international community seems to have forgotten. We know the power of dialogue, we know the importance of international law and human rights and we know the power of peace. We voted for those principles in the Good Friday Agreement. That is where international focus should be now, on stopping the war.

Mr Martin: We have not talked very much about actual Iranians during this, so I thought that I would do that. What is life like for a woman in the Islamic Republic?

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will. I have not got too far, but I will.

Mr Sheehan: Since you are going to talk about Iranians, will you talk about the more than 160 young girls — children — who were murdered by a United States missile?

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

Mr Martin: No one is going to stand on this side of the Chamber and stand over the deaths of any children in Iran.

Mr Sheehan: Do you condemn that?

Mr Martin: I just have.

Let us look at what life is like for a woman in Iran under Islamic law. Iranian law does not criminalise marital rape or any other forms of domestic violence. Rape is not even classified as a distinct crime under Iranian law. The Center for Human Rights in Iran said that intimate partner violence and so-called honour killings are so commonplace in Iran that only a small fraction of cases are actually reported. Under Iranian Islamic sharia law, a girl can be married at 13 but, with the permission of the father, can be married at nine.

I would like to read into the record the names of two brave women, Zahra Tabari and Pakhshan Azizi, both are human rights activists who live under a death sentence for simply opposing the regime that we are talking about today. Both remain in prison. I know that neither of them will shed any tears over the targeting of those who put them there, and I am sure that they will be praying for the regime to fall.

The First Minister said earlier today that this party championed the war and was on the wrong side of the issue. I am glad that we are on the side of women in Iran, such as Miss Tabari and Miss Azizi, and I wonder what side that leaves her and her party on.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: No, I want to make some progress.

Let me deal with the Sinn Féin contention that the matter should be settled with talks and diplomacy. There has been a 24-year diplomatic history over the issue. Iran has never been serious in its negotiations. Iran has no intention to disarm its ballistic nuclear programme. It is a little bit akin to Chamberlain, back in 1939, coming back to this country and saying, "Peace for our time". Iran has never been serious about it, and it never will be.

The motion states that it:

I assume that that is a poor attempt at sarcasm from Sinn Féin, although it is in bad taste. Some 30,000 people called recently for self-determination in Iran, and what was the regime's response? Those people were killed on the streets just for standing up for self-determination, so please tell me how negotiation is going to free the people of Iran. Do not patronise the people of Iran by even talking about your understanding of what self-determination is.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I cannot.

Let us at least be honest. Most of us understand that Iran poses a clear and present danger to all states in the region with its ballistic missile capabilities. There is a Shahab-3 variant that has a range of almost 2,000 km and, it is said, is designed to be nuclear-capable. If we allowed Iran to develop such nuclear ballistic capabilities, they would, as my colleague said, be within striking range of Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus. There is no mention in the motion of Iran's strikes against Israel. I know that Sinn Féin will not particularly care about that, but the motion also fails to mention the strikes that Iran is currently carrying out against the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Jordan, Turkey and Cyprus.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I would love to, Matthew, honestly, but I would not get this finished.

The motion, rightly, mentions the distress felt by many British and Irish citizens who are stranded in the region or were in recent times, but the faux concern of Sinn Féin has, rightly, been characterised by every other party in the Chamber as too little, too late. The First Minister for all could not show up at a key briefing, and it was left to our Minister, the deputy First Minister, to be in the room for all citizens, be they British or Irish, in this country. The DUP will not sanitise the Islamic Republic of Iran like the Members opposite. We will call it out for what it is, its human rights abuses, what it is doing to women in that country, and the fact that it will not allow self-determination or democracy. It will allow ballistic missile capabilities to be improved and refined until they can reach the borders of Europe. We will call Iran out for what it is, which is a terror-sponsoring, theocratic state that poses an ongoing threat, not just to Israel but to all countries in the region. As such, we will oppose the motion.

Mr Gaston: I oppose the motion and support the amendment standing in the names of Mr Beattie and Dr Aiken.

The motion pays lip service to condemning the regime in Iran, but it should not be lost on anyone in the Chamber that Sinn Féin did not rush to the Business Office to table a motion when tens of thousands of people were being massacred by their own Government on the streets of Iran. Sinn Féin, the party of selective human rights, strikes again and exposes the fact that, once again, it supports the oppressor. True to form, it was only when Israel got involved that Mr Sheehan, the cash-and-carry bomber who likes to lecture everyone in the House, got exercised enough to put his name to a motion. That, of course, raises the question of why Israel and their allies in the US thought that now was the time to strike.

That brings us back to 7 October 2023, when Iran funded and armed Hamas terrorists to stream over the border from Gaza into Israel and butcher anyone whom their paths crossed with. Those were the animals that Sinn Féin champion and aligns itself to. Last week a film was shown in this Building of some of the raw footage of what happened that day. Security camera footage showed a girl pleading for her life before being shot in the head. Home CCTV footage showed a father with two young boys hiding in their home, only for a grenade to be thrown among them, which killed the father. After that, the young boys sat crying on their mother, as armed terrorists casually strolled about their home, drinking from their fridge and eating their food. First responder footage showed women's bodies lying mutilated after being raped and murdered. Hamas body-camera footage showed a man being decapitated with a shovel. That was the face of Iran's allies in Hamas, yet Sinn Féin comes to this Chamber to lecture Israel and the US on international law. There is not one of us present here who, on seeing our family butchered by Iran's mates, would sit around waiting for approval before acting to prevent Iran from securing a nuclear weapon.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to the cash-and-carry bomber.

Mr Sheehan: I just wonder whether the Member has anything to say about the 25,000 children who were killed in Gaza by the Israelis or the 165 children killed by the US in Iran? Has he anything to say about his own party leader, who was involved with Ulster Resistance also, who brought in the weapons that were used to kill hundreds of innocent Catholics here?

Mr Gaston: Mr Sheehan

to say in this Chamber?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member is no longer — Mr Sheehan —.

Mr Sheehan: Have you anything to say about that?

Mr Gaston: outside the Chamber, unlike you —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Sheehan, you know that the Member is no longer giving way.

Mr Gaston, you have an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: Unlike you, Mr Sheehan, I can say that any loss of life is regrettable. Can you say that? When you went to plant the bomb in the cash-and-carry, could you say that, if that would have caused loss of life?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, return to the motion.

Mr Gaston: Could you say that? Every loss of life, Pat. Every loss of life is regrettable, but you cannot say that, you or your mates in Sinn Féin.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, resume your seat. First, your remarks will be conducted through the Chair. Secondly, you will return to the motion.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The hypocrisy hanging out of Mr Sheehan, who gets up on his feet to lecture us in the Chamber after what he did, and his convictions in his past —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Will you at least relate it to the motion?

Mr Gaston: Absolute hypocrisy. Just like his mates, the terrorist ayatollahs; just like his mates in Hamas. That is the side that Mr Sheehan likes to be on. Mr Sheehan, I put it to you: would you like to enlighten the House as to what elements of the UN Charter and international law you concerned yourself about when you went to plant the bomb in the cash-and-carry?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, resume your seat again. You know, like I know, that you are not speaking to the motion. You are addressing a Member across the Chamber —

Mr Gaston: Absolutely [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): — mostly not through the Chair. Return to the motion or desist completely.

Mr Gaston: Deputy Speaker, when the Members sitting across from me profess that they shed tears for the children killed in Iran, my mind turns to events closer to home here in Northern Ireland. Yesterday was the anniversary of the murder of 11-year-old Alan McCrum, who, in a no-warning IRA bomb, was killed in Banbridge 43 years ago. You cannot claim outrage over the deaths of children thousands of miles away in Iran and Gaza and tell me that there was no alternative to the murder of an 11-year-old Protestant 45 minutes down the road from this very Building. This motion once again shows the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin.

That is why businesses, such as Cantor Fitzgerald, do not want to do business with its Minister. You cannot claim to be the First Minister for all, while you cling to being the First Minister of no alternative.

We have heard fancy words such as "delusion" coming from the Benches opposite, and we have heard about "morally wrong" and "illegally". My goodness, the hypocrisy that comes from that side of the Chamber; to this day, Sinn Féin supports the actions of the IRA — they are joined together as one — but it comes to the Chamber to lecture us. The hypocrisy knows no bounds, and, Mr Sheehan, you are the prime culprit. You come to the Chamber — a bomber —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Gaston: — coming to the Chamber to tell anybody about —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Gaston, resume your seat. Time is up. I think that you heard me.

Mr Carroll: I will address the motion and the amendments. The motion addresses some of the key issues in the very challenging and disturbing global situation, and it also outlines that the main aggressor in the world today is the United States. Despite all the scaremongering about China and other states across the world, while, historically, the US is a weaker empire and has suffered defeats in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is still the biggest military power in the world and probably in world history. As an illustration of how big it is, the US spends at least $1 trillion a year on what it calls "defence" but everybody else calls "a military budget". That puts into context the scale of the US as a military power. Despite the focus on the US being a bringer of freedom and democracy — people will parrot that stuff in the coming days and this year with the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence — it is worth asking what the US spends that money on.

The US is the biggest exporter of terror across the world, as well as terrorising its own black and brown communities with its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) paramilitary gang. On the first day of the war with Iran, we saw what the so-called US defence support for human rights meant. We saw a school in Minab in southern Iran blown to bits, and 165 schoolchildren were killed. They count; they matter, even if they do not matter to some of the parties in the Chamber this evening. The motion calls those attacks illegal, which they absolutely are, but they are more than that: they are completely unwarranted, immoral and unprovoked. It is hypocritical and hard to stomach when parties in the House denounce and declare their opposition to terrorism but will then exchange shamrocks with Donald Trump tomorrow and shake his hand. He is the terrorist in chief across the world, so shame on them and their hypocrisy.

At least 1,440 Iranians have been killed, and almost 20,000 people have been injured. There has been no mention of those people by the parties to my right. There are about 10 million people who have been affected by poisoned air following the US bombing of oil facilities next to the Strait of Hormuz. Almost 1,000 Lebanese people have been killed by the Israeli state, and there has been no mention of those people either. Given all the focus and money spent on AI technology, sophisticated weaponry and other devices, it is quite remarkable that the decision of the Iranian state to close the Strait of Hormuz shipping route can cause so much financial havoc, panic and chaos to people here and across the world. However, obviously, the DUP cheered that on, and the closure is responsible for the price rises because of the bombing. It also illustrates that we need to move away from our reliance on fossil fuels, but, again, the DUP cries "green panic" when it hears that.

Many of us knew that the genocide would not be confined to the Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel has been central to the violence in recent days, never mind the past 50 or 60-plus years. Israel and America started this war, and that is why the UUP's amendment is quite delusional. It is as though no sanctions have been placed on Iran or bombs dropped on Iranian cities. When was the last time that the Iranian people or Government bombed a city in America?

Mr Martin: I always thank the Member for giving way. Will the Member clarify whether he supports or opposes the Islamic Republic of Iran?

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

Mr Carroll: In the short time that I have, I will say that the reason that there is an Islamic republic in Iran is that its people were ruled by a brutal shah, who was backed by the US and Britain. They therefore created their own state. Would it be my state? Is it a socialist state?

Mr Brooks: They replaced him with a brutal ayatollah.

Mr Carroll: I am answering the question, yet you are shouting at me. You need a short history lesson, but I do not have time to give one. It is up to the people of Iran to determine their Government and the future of their state. It is a bit rich to hear about theocracy and oppression from the party that supports theocracy and biblical interpretations of the oppression of women and many other minorities. People will find that rich and hypocritical, but I have no time to get into —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes. Go ahead.

Mr Sheehan: Does the Member agree that Netanyahu, the man who is wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, has been saying for 30 years — 30 years — that Iran is within weeks of making a nuclear bomb? This is not anything new. It is fake news again.

Mr Carroll: I agree. I also point to the Christian fanatics, if not fascists, in the US Government who cheer on, support and agree with Netanyahu.

I have a few seconds left. There are problems, to put it mildly, with the Alliance Party's amendment, although I recognise some of what Kate Nicholl said. Alliance, alongside other parties, defended the Ukrainian people's right to defend themselves against invasion and bombing by Russia, and rightly so. Its amendment No 2, however, equivocates on that point on Iran and fails to recognise the key aggressor. Ukrainians are therefore allowed the right to self-defence, but Iranians are not. The amendment repeats the myth about nuclear weapons. The IAEA —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mr Carroll: — says that there is no chance of Iran developing —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Carroll: — nuclear weapons.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 3. Colin, you have up to five minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although the debate concerns events far beyond these islands, it is fairly obvious that the consequences are being felt directly by the people whom we all represent. What we are seeing in the Middle East is a serious and dangerous escalation. Lives, including those of children, have been lost. Civilians have been put in harm's way. Families across the region are living in fear and uncertainty about what is to come next.

If we are serious about standing behind international law, we must also be serious about recognising the human cost when that law is ignored. The SDLP has been clear in condemning the illegal attacks, and we have also been clear in condemning the human rights abuses and lack of democracy in Iran. The two positions are not contradictory. International law has meaning only if it is applied consistently, regardless of who is responsible.

The debate cannot end with foreign policy alone, because instability in the Middle East quickly becomes pressure on households here at home. We have already seen oil prices rise, and that matters more in Northern Ireland than it does in most places. More than two thirds of households here rely on home heating oil, and, when prices rise, people feel it immediately. Fuel poverty is already a reality for far too many families. Too many people are trying to keep their home warm while balancing bills that are rising faster than their income.

When conflict pushes up energy prices, the impact is felt first not in markets but in homes across the North. It is felt by older people living alone, by parents trying to make ends meet and by workers who have little room in their household budgets. The debate is not distant from the responsibilities of the Assembly but, rather, speaks directly to the cost of living and how the Executive respond when people here are put under pressure by events that they cannot control.

That is why the SDLP tabled its amendment. People expect Ministers to work together in such moments. They expect a clear plan, not mixed messages, and they expect the Executive to act to protect them from rising costs. Engagement has taken place between the Minister for the Economy and the British Government, and that is to be welcomed, but engagement alone will not protect families from higher bills. Even if additional funding is required, there is nothing preventing the Executive from preparing a support scheme now and being clear with the public about what will happen if prices continue to rise. Instead, in recent days, we have seen confusion, contradiction and far too much political infighting. Families who rely on oil to heat their home are worried about costs, yet they hear Ministers arguing with one another, rather than seeking solutions.

The scenes from this morning's Economy Committee are an example of how not to do government here. An emergency meeting was called to discuss rising energy prices, but, instead of our hearing a clear plan to support households, much of the discussion focused on disagreements in the Executive. The meeting descended into political exchanges between the Chair and members of the Minister's party, with more time spent on point-scoring than on solutions. For anyone watching, it will have been deeply frustrating. People who are worried about the cost of heating their home expect leadership, not arguments. What we saw this morning reflects a wider problem: an Executive who too often struggle to act collectively and too often fail to respond with the urgency that situations such as this demand. That is why the SDLP argues that reform of these institutions is not an abstract debate; reform is about delivery and making sure that, when crises happen, the Executive are capable of responding quickly and in the interests of the people whom we serve.

The motion and the SDLP amendment recognise both sides of the situation that we face: the need to stand firmly behind international law, and the need to protect families here at home from the consequences of a crisis that they did not create. I urge Members to support the motion and our amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Eóin Tennyson to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The US and Israel are waging a war of choice on Iran, while Iran is engaged in reckless and random retaliation that risks destabilising the entire region. It is an illegal war that is being waged by Donald Trump with no clear goal, no clear exit strategy and no clear basis in international law. Frankly, I am surprised that Members older than me are not more reticent about supporting that illegal action, given its eerie resemblance to the war in Iraq.

The war is not some distant abstraction; its consequences ripple far beyond Iran's borders, reaching into homes and communities across the world, including here, where working families face soaring energy costs as a direct result of the conflict and worry about loved ones who are stranded in the region. However, as with so many of our debates on international conflicts, the debate has descended into petty political point-scoring, overlaid with our own sectarianism and prejudice, at the expense of genuine humanitarian concern and any clear unity or agreement about the way to support families. I do not expect parties in the Chamber to be able to reach consensus on the morality of the conflict, but I expect them to be able to agree a way forward on the practicality of how we support our own citizens. I am convinced that the First Minister played it wrong. When families were crying out for information about how to get loved ones home, she chose ideology over standing up for them and representing their concerns. That was a failure of the people whom we represent.

A local Iranian living in Belfast, Azadeh Sobout, told RTÉ:

That is a choice that no Iranian should have to face. Beneath those binaries lies something deeper and far more dangerous: the steady erosion of international law, which is the very framework that was designed to protect civilians, restrain power and hold the powerful to account. The erosion of those protections often accompanies the erosion of civil liberties at home, as we have seen in the United States.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way, given that his time is precious. He talked about binaries. Binaries are not very much comfort to people in Iranian jails or to people who have been killed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

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

Mr Tennyson: Look, there will be a rush to try to take sides, but it is entirely possible to abhor the human rights abuses, murders and oppression carried out by the Iranian regime, to condemn its support for global terrorism and to demand an end to its nuclear programme whilst recognising that the military action taken by the US and Israel is contrary to international law, just as Iran's retaliatory strikes across the Gulf and the eastern Mediterranean are.

I ask the Member this: how will sprouts of peace grow from the rubble of a bombed primary school? How will the foundations for democracy be laid on the graves of dead innocent women and children? I agreed with parts of the Member's contribution, such as when he talked about the impact of sharia law and the human rights abuses that accompany it, but is he seriously claiming that we should just bomb every country that observes sharia law? That is not a credible position for any politician to take. It is vital that the Chamber stand firmly for the people of Iran, for democracy, for freedom and for human rights.

I take issue with the proposer of the motion. Mr Kearney made a remark that there is "no alternative to political dialogue". I will be really clear: that is as true of this society, and it was as true in the '70s, '80s and '90s as it is today. There is an issue with consistency when it comes to Sinn Féin's association with despotic and barbaric regimes across the world and its willingness to condone human rights abuses closer to home. I ask the Member to reflect on that.

The DUP feigned concern for the people of Iran, but, of course, it is the same party that howls, "Stop the boats", whenever Iranians arrive on our shores to seek sanctuary. It is always on the wrong side of history. It is happy to trumpet President Trump and to support his illegal war. It is always the party of illegal war and higher energy bills, traipsing over to the White House to praise the president's latest reckless action.

We need to strike a balance in the debate. The Alliance amendment seeks to restore that balance and consistency. The motion does not sufficiently address the illegality of Iran's random response. To Gerry Carroll's point, countries have a right to self-defence but not to lash out indiscriminately at other countries in the region. The SDLP amendment does not adequately correct that, although I agree with much of what the SDLP has proposed.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the Ulster Unionists' amendment —.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I do not have time.

I agree with the Ulster Unionist's condemnation of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism through Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iran and the IRGC, and I share the concern, expressed in their amendment, for service personnel in the region, but it removes any criticism of Donald Trump or his disregard for international law and the UN charter, and I just cannot support that.

If we believe in the rule of law, then it must be applied equally: to our allies, as much as to our adversaries. I hope that parties across the Chamber can get behind our proposed way forward and send a clear, principled message in defence of international law and the rights of the Iranian people.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call Steve Aiken to wind on amendment No 1. You also have five minutes.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I had hoped, probably forlornly, that the debate would be about the real issues and what is going on. I have a couple of declarations of interest to make. The first is that I work very closely with an Iranian diaspora group, and I have recently spent quite a lot of time talking to members of the Iranian diaspora.

I have a lot of notes here, but, quite frankly, there is no point in talking to them, because it will not lead to any variation in the debate. The first question is this: does the Iranian regime represent a threat? The answer is, very clearly, yes. It is not Iran or the Iranian people but the Iranian regime — the IRGC — that represents a threat. The IRGC is a country within a country. It controls the state and the religious police: the police who go around blinding women. They are the ones who grab women, put them into prisons and conduct mass rape. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Iranians.

The other issue that Iranians have is that there seems to have been — how can I put this? We have seen it today — the idea that there is somehow some chicness about the Iranian regime and what the ayatollahs have done. I have not yet met an Iranian who is supportive of the Iranian regime and how it survives. I have not yet met an Iranian who has told me that he is sorry that the ayatollah was taken out. All of them want to see Iran be a proper country and be able to grow and develop. Previously, it had one of the most developed education systems in the region. It educated women. Unlike Afghanistan, or wherever, it educated women to a degree that many of them had jobs. Is it a surprise now that so many of the diaspora are women who have escaped Iran? Why have they done that? They have escaped because it has become a theocracy. It is a theocracy that is hell-bent on creating its own dynamic and power within the region.

I was hoping that someone would talk about Barack Obama and his plan when he started the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). When talk on that policy started, the uranium enrichment of nuclear fuel was around 2% to 3%. I will make another declaration of interest: I am probably the only person here who has been in charge of a nuclear power plant. Fuel inside a nuclear power plant is enriched to somewhere between 4% and 5%. Sometimes, it is enriched up to about 12%. At the most recent so-called peace talks in Geneva, the International Atomic Energy Agency briefed the team that uranium enrichment was now at 65%-plus. The only reason why you would make nuclear fuel with uranium enrichment of 65%-plus is to build an atomic bomb. That is what the Iranians were going to do, because, last July, its ability to make atomic bombs had been taken out, but they still had enriched uranium left over.

What were we going to wait for? Were we going to wait to see the first atomic test by the Iranians and a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv? What did we expect the Iranian regime to do? Let us look at its history and what it has done in the past. Look at the number of times that it has attacked the United States, Israel and us. A friend of mine here fought in Iraq. I was in Iraq. A lot of the bombs and IEDs that were used against us were produced by the Iranians and the Revolutionary Guard. Exactly the same thing happened in Afghanistan. If we are serious about calling out terrorist regimes, we should have called out Iran. We should have been doing that for years, but we did not. Some people were happy to cosy up to ayatollahs, have tea and sticky buns with them and have their photographs taken on Bobby Sands Street in Tehran.

We have a concern, which I will express in the 10 seconds that I have left: in the middle of Tehran is a clock that is counting down to when Israel is going to be abolished and taken out.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up, Dr Aiken.

Dr Aiken: That is a reason for supporting our amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Emma Sheerin to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

We should be speaking with a consistent voice, and we should all be opposed to what we have seen in recent weeks. We should have a united voice coming from the Chamber. Instead, political unionism — the DUP, in particular — has glorified that aggression, supported yet another western intervention and, indeed, bemoaned the lack of British money being spent on defence. The Member nods his head, but that is depressing. That is sad. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr Brooks: Not a bit of it.

Ms Sheerin: That is a reflection on you. I have heard the same line parroted, time and again — various Members said it today — that there would be no tears shed for the ayatollah. What tears will you shed for the innocent lives that were lost?

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes.

Mr Brooks: Has the Member shed any tears for the victims of the IRA? Does she worry about the 30,000 Iranians who were killed by the regime before this?

Ms Sheerin: You could not answer the question. I have always heard it said that every death was a tragedy. That is something that you will have to consider in the fullness of time.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes, I will.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member agree that the parties that are raising their opposition to the Iranian regime do not understand that bombing the people in Iran will lead to more people supporting the Iranian regime, as they will see it as an alternative to America, while that sugar-coating misrepresents what the regime was about? Does the Member agree that the Members to my right need to take that on board?

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree with what he said, because, as we know, there have been multiple references today to the conflict in Ireland, most of which happened before I was born. I am grateful for that, and I am grateful to the Members on these Benches who fought so hard to get us the peace that I had the privilege to grow up in [Interruption.]

I say clearly that it was the British who started the conflict in this country. It was the British who occupied this place and the British who brought oppression here

, and, as a result of that, as we see across the world, oppressed people

— oppressed people will rise up. That is a fact and has always been a fact. The Member can mock all he wants, but it brings the fullness of his false words when he talks about victims of violence when that is his response to lost lives.

I will say clearly that no tears were shed for the innocent victims in Iran at this time. What is absolutely disgusting is the fact that Members, one after another, have attempted to use the suffering of women and minority groupings in Iran as justification for the Israeli and US aggression. You will not save women from oppression by bombing schoolgirls from the skies. That is a fact and has always been a fact, and we have seen that time and again, including this past week. We are on the record as saying this: there is absolutely no doubt that there has been abuse and persecution of women and other minority groupings in Iran. Do you know where else there is evidence of abuse of women? On every page of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Half the DUP Members are not here today because they are over across the world shaking shamrocks at a man who was found guilty in a court of law of sexual assault, the victim of which he then defamed — a man who has since glorified and joked about the abuse and sexual assault of women [Interruption.]

I will not take lectures from you or anybody else about our record on rights, because it has been clear. I am proud to be a representative of Sinn Féin and of the people whom I stand with. I know what I stand for, and it has been consistent.

Mr Brooks: So do we.

Ms Sheerin: That is good.

We would like to see a consistent voice coming from the Chamber, but, unfortunately, we have not seen the Members opposite be able to condemn the breaches of international law that we have seen in this past week. Instead, they have cheerled and congratulated the US and Israeli intervention, which has caused untold loss of life and will continue to do so, because, as has been clearly outlined, there is no plan for this aggression, as we have seen down through the years. There are people who feel that it is sad and embarrassing that we cannot have a consistent approach from the Chamber: I agree with that, but I am really frustrated by the way that it has been framed. We have parties in government here that are ideologically opposed on a number of issues, including our past in Ireland and different international events. However, in the wake of this incident, unionism congratulated the US and Israel, jumped up and down and could not wait to tell them what a great job they were doing and wished that the British Government would do more. Let me be clear: I am proud of the stance that Michelle O'Neill took, and we in Sinn Féin will not be complicit in British defence, because we know what British defence means. We have seen it in Ireland, and we know what it means. We have seen it across the world.

Following that, never mind any sympathy for the loss of life across the world or the poor, innocent victims who had war brought upon them by international actors, we saw, within 24 hours, that it was going to have an impact on our constituents. Once again, the most vulnerable in society here — the people living on the breadline; working-class communities that we are all proud to represent — will struggle to pay their bills as a result of circumstances beyond their control. Instead of coming together and trying to work together as an Executive to demand that the British Government fund us in order to support the people whom we all represent, we see the DUP going on a complete red herring of a mission and borderline bullying several Sinn Féin Ministers about a bogus £81 million pot of money that is supposedly sitting there. No matter how clearly Dr Archibald explained it time and again to the Members opposite, they continued dragging her in front of Committees, asking question after question —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Ms Sheerin, can you return to the motion?

Ms Sheerin: — and accusing her of hiding when she was across the world. She was on the media —.

Mr Brett: Sit down.

Ms Sheerin: Do not tell me to sit down.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members.

Mr Brett: The Deputy Speaker is telling you to sit down.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): On this side of the House, on my right, we will return to the motion. On my left, we will return to the point that I made earlier about the distinction between "robust" and "rude". The Members know to whom I am referring.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

This relates directly to the motion, because it asks for a clearly concerted approach from the Executive. What I am setting out here is that, in the wake of the crisis, instead of working with us to support the people whom we all represent, we have seen the bully boys in the DUP go after several of our Ministers. Instead of working with them, supporting them and helping them to deliver support, they are trying to backtrack from their own mistakes and play a blame game that does not make sense. I know that it is coming up to St Paddy's. I do not know whether they are so carried away with the US St Paddy's ritual that they think that there are leprechauns or pots of gold up in the sky or what the situation is, but I have never seen the like of it: Dr Archibald being accused of hiding when she was across the world. Last Thursday night, she was on the media online.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Can you return to the motion, please?

Ms Sheerin: The motion calls for what we will do to represent our constituents in the wake of international aggression. What I am saying is that our Ministers have worked hard to deliver that support and have called on the British Government to give us the means to do so. Once again, factors that are beyond our control leave us in that position because we do not have the autonomy that we would like to have here to do that directly.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes, I will.

Ms Nicholl: First, I disassociate myself from the comments that were directed to the Member, telling her to sit down. It is appalling that she was spoken to in that manner.

I talked about the need for Ministers to speak with one voice. I understand perfectly that, as my colleague said, it is not about morality — there are different opinions on it — but about how, practically, we can put positions in place. Our points are really around the need for an international relations strategy and ethical framework, so that we can find a way forward.

The way in which you have been spoken to while delivering your speech is appalling.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member and appreciate the solidarity, which is consistent from her.

I totally understand the point that she makes. However, I urge anybody to reflect on the coverage that there has been over recent days. DUP members were told time and again how that support would be extended to our constituents and had the scheme broken down and explained to them by Dr Archibald — a schoolchild could have understood it — and they just refused to listen to it, continued to bully and shout at her in a Committee meeting and refused to let her take advice from her officials. It is absolutely insane. It is not in any way appropriate.

In tabling the motion, we are saying clearly once again that we oppose imperial aggression, colonialism and modern-day colonialism. We have been consistent on that. We oppose the using of vulnerable groups across the world as justification for modern-day imperialist advances, which is what this is. We stand against that completely. Once again, we call on everyone in the Chamber to call for international rule and for human rights to always be observed across the world. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind you that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment Nos 2 or 3.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question on amendment No 2, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 3.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, bear with me for one moment, please. Thank you.