Official Report: Tuesday 16 June 2026

Mrs Mason: Today in the Dáil, Sinn Féin will introduce a private Member's Bill that will require an Taoiseach to get planning and preparation for constitutional change and Irish unity under way. There is already an exciting and energetic debate under way across all four corners of the island about what a new Ireland would look like. I welcome Fine Gael's announcement that it will put forward a blueprint on Irish unity in November. Like never before, people are engaging and are genuinely interested in what constitutional change would look like for them. We have been clear: the Irish Government should step up and begin proper planning and preparation. The election of a first-ever nationalist and republican First Minister in the North and the recent election of pro-independence First Ministers in the North, Scotland and Wales have shown that people are fed up with savage Westminster policies. People want to look to a future in which decisions are made at home and in the best interests of the people who live here.

The legislation that will be introduced by uachtaráin Sinn Féin

Mary Lou McDonald today provides for the Taoiseach to publish a government Green Paper to set out their ideas and vision for a united Ireland. It will also provide for the establishment of a citizens' assembly to help to shape and inform the debate. Importantly, that will involve people from across the island and from all sections of our community, including those from unionist and Protestant traditions. Preparation and planning are vital. The Bill will provide the Irish Government with the opportunity to start planning and preparing for Irish unity.

Mrs Erskine: Last week, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) published its report following an unannounced inspection of emergency general surgery pathways at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH). While the report outlines a number of positive developments, it is vital that the findings and the figures are fully scrutinised and not simply accepted at face value.

Of particular concern are the issues highlighted regarding patient transfers from SWAH to Altnagelvin. Those concerns are not new.

For some time, I have been raising serious questions about patient transport arrangements and the impact that lengthy journeys and delays can have on patients. Constituents and healthcare staff have consistently voiced their concerns about the challenges associated with transfers between the hospital sites, and those concerns cannot be overlooked when assessing the overall effectiveness of the current emergency general surgery model.

The people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone were promised an awful lot when the service and the pathways were changed. We were promised that new roads would be built and that ambulance transfers would be in place. It is clear from the RQIA report that those things have not happened in tandem with the change of that service. We still have a pause — a temporary cessation — of emergency general surgery in Fermanagh, and, when you look at the fact that ambulance transfers are having a serious knock-on impact on the service, you see that that is having a detrimental impact. One aspect of the report that stood out for me was the fact that the Department of Health has not provided or commissioned any additional resource to alleviate the pressures experienced by the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service in supporting the changes to emergency general surgery at the SWAH that are increasing the transfers in the system.

This has been going on for too long. For four years, we have been in this situation, yet the Health Minister has failed to take the necessary action; instead, the trust has been forced to rely on private ambulance provision that comes at a cost to the Department and, essentially, to us as ratepayers and taxpayers. Therefore, it is important that the Minister steps in and acts. I thank the health staff who have been doing their utmost to ensure patient safety. I will try to meet the Health Minister, the RQIA and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service on this, but it is time for action and to stop treating the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Erskine: — as citizens who do not —

Mr Speaker: I call Kate Nicholl.

Mrs Erskine: — need respect.

Ms Nicholl: A few days ago, the world's first trillionaire, Elon Musk — a man with no mandate; an immigrant with wealth twice the GDP of the country that he came from — commented on a photo of the first citizen of Belfast and described her as a "Betrayer of her people". As a former Lord Mayor, I was not only shocked that someone who bought that social media platform to spread his ideological views would comment on the first citizen of Belfast but surprised that there was not more commentary on it. I feel strongly that Elon Musk has no real idea of what people across the world are going through, let alone those in Belfast.

That comment spoke to something more sinister that is going on in our society. In the news, there have been comments about how proxies have attacked the Prime Minister. The other day, Suzanne Breen wrote a powerful article about the abuse that she has received as a journalist, and what struck me when she posted that on social media were the comments from other women and other people who said that they had been receiving the same sort of abuse. Looking around the Chamber, I am sure that everyone here has received similar. There has been a noticeable change in the comments that we get in response to what we put on social media. We all have thick skin, and we have all been around for long enough to deal with the cut and thrust of politics, as it is often described here, but there has been a shift and a change. I had never had to report the comments that I received to the police, but I had to do that last week. Awful things that brought in families were said. The comments were violent and at a different level from anything that I have seen before.

We are in a difficult place right now. This destabilises our democracy. It is easy to believe lies when you are angry, and I am not sure what we do about it. I know that there is discussion about how new laws on cybersecurity need to be brought in, and I know that we need to address more of that. I am concerned about the bad actors at play, the misinformation and the inflaming of situations that are coming and about the fact that that is happening across society. We have to inform ourselves and challenge it when we see it and, when we engage — this might not sound like a theoretical thing to do — to do so with kindness and empathy, because we live in a dark time, and it is important that we bring that into our politics. Solidarity to everyone who is going through this right now but especially to the first citizen of Belfast, who should not have been subjected to that.

Mr Chambers: Recently, I had the privilege of taking a walk down memory lane when Kilmaine Primary School in Bangor hosted an impressive exhibition to celebrate 50 years of delivering a top-class and caring primary education to thousands of children. My five children attended the school — it is just round the corner from my home — and 11 of my grandchildren have been educated at Kilmaine Primary School. The school motto is, "Everyone Counts". That is an ethos that the school lives up to. It is a happy school, and the joy of the staff and children is evident when you step in through the front door.

Kilmaine opened in September 1975 with 109 pupils and five members of teaching staff. The school grew rapidly alongside the surrounding housing developments, and, in the 1980s, it reached more than 700 pupils and, during the 1990s, over 1,000. The founding principal was Mr Raymond Boyd, who led the school until 2001. He was loved by the children and respected in equal measure by the parents. The school added a nursery unit in October 2000, providing preschool education for 52 part-time pupils.

The late Mr John Mann succeeded Mr Boyd as principal and oversaw one of the most significant developments in the school's history when the move was made into a purpose-built new building in 2005. Prior to that, education had been conducted in 46 temporary mobile classrooms. The new facilities marked a major milestone for pupils and staff, providing modern classrooms and resources to support learning. Since then, the school has continued to build a reputation for academic achievement, sporting success and a strong programme of music, drama and pastoral care. Two members of the Northern Ireland senior women and men's football teams — the much-capped Ashley Hutton and Josh Magennis — attended Kilmaine.

Mr William Campbell served as principal from 2014 to 2019. The current principal is Mrs Rachael Sinnamon, who is not only a former teacher in Kilmaine; she attended that wonderful school as a pupil.

I wish the school another 50 years of success and excellence in delivering first-class primary education to generations to come. I record my warmest gratitude for what the current and past staff have contributed to children's education and development over the past 50 years in Kilmaine Primary School.

Mr McNulty: Today, I recognise and celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Camlough Brass and Reed Band. Ninety years is a remarkable achievement for any organisation. It is a testament to the dedication, commitment and passion of the generations of members, volunteers, families and supporters who have kept the proud tradition alive since 1936.

Over the past nine decades, the Camlough Brass and Reed Band, which was originally named the Camlough Foresters' Band, has been far more than a musical group. It has been an integral part of community life across County Armagh and beyond, bringing people together, developing young talent and raising hundreds of thousands of pounds for charities. Over the years, the band has been conducted by the great Billy Carroll, Eamon McNulty, Paxy Haughey, Seamus Mulligan, Adrian Benson, Philip Hughes and Tom McCabe. As is the case with many other community bands, thousands of voluntary hours go unseen each year into making the music that we have grown up to enjoy and appreciate. For that, we are incredibly grateful.

What makes Camlough brass band even more special is its cross-community ethos. In a place where we continue to build understanding and respect across traditions, the band stands as a wonderful testament to how music is one of the internationally understood languages that unites people, creates friendships and strengthens communities.

As we celebrate that milestone, we recognise not only the band's proud history but its exciting future. Whether I am singing along with the famous Kathleen and Andrew Moore and our former SDLP councillor John Feehan or tapping my feet to lifelong band members Billy McKevitt and Brian Keenan, the continued enthusiasm and talent of the musical team gives me every confidence that Camlough Brass and Reed Band will flourish many more years to come: for the next 90 years and beyond.

Camlough Brass and Reed Band's members always play with joy in their heart, and the band brings joy to the heart of everybody who hears it play and sing. I offer a hearty comhghairdeas

and thank-you to all current and past members for that wonderful achievement, and I wish the band all the very best for the future.

Mr Sheehan: Is scannalach go deo an foréigean ciníoch a chonaic muid le seachtain anuas. Tá ionsaithe ar theaghlaigh, ar thithe agus ar ghnólachtaí doleithscéil, agus tá siad dochosanta. Níor cheart eagla a mbáis a bheith ar dhaoine neamhurchóideacha mar gheall ar a gcine, a gcúlra ná a gcreideamh.

Is ar an neamhord phoiblí a díríodh an chuid is mó den aird, agus is ceart gur díríodh, ach caithfimid a aithint fosta go ndeachaidh an t-achrann i gcion ar pháistí ó phobail mionlaigh eitneacha. D’amharc cuid mhór daoine óga ar a raibh ag tarlú ar líne agus ina bpobail féin agus a sáith imní orthu. Tá eagla ar chuid acu taisteal, tá eagla orthu gabháil ar scoil, agus tá eagla orthu go ndéanfar ionsaí orthu mar gheall ar a n-aicme. Agus iad ag ullmhú le haghaidh scrúduithe GCSE agus ard-leibhéil, féadann an imní agus an éiginnteacht sin drochthionchar a imirt ar a n-oideachas agus ar a bhfolláine. Níor cheart rogha a bheith le déanamh ag dalta ar bith idir bheith ar a shuaimhneas nó gabháil ar scoil, níor cheart eagla a bheith ar thuismitheoirí a bpáistí a chur ar scoil ar maidin. Tá ról tábhachtach le himirt ag scoileanna, ag múinteoirí agus ag foirne cúnta le cuidiú leis na páistí ar bhain na heachtraí deireanacha dóibh, ach ní mór na hacmhainní agus an chomhairle chuí a bheith acu le sin a dhéanamh.

Ná téimis ar chúl scéithe leis: níl aon áit ag an chiníochas inár sochaí. Tá sé de cheart ag gach páiste, beag beann ar a aicme, a mhothú féin go bhfuil sé sábháilte, go bhfuil sé faoi mheas agus go bhfuil fáilte roimhe ina scoil agus ina shochaí.

Mr Brett: The week before last, I was honoured to join hundreds of members of the lower north Belfast community as we came together to remember on its 50th anniversary the Times Bar bombing, which took place on 5 June 1976. The commemoration marked 50 years since a terrorist attack tore the heart out of the lower north Belfast community. The Times Bar, which is located at the junction of York Road and Mountcollyer Road, was, and still is, a part of everyday life in north Belfast. It was a familiar meeting place where local people gathered for companionship and conversation during our darkest days.

On that June evening, republican terrorism brought devastation to that ordinary setting. Edward McMurray, aged 41, and Robert Groves, aged 45, were murdered in cold blood. Their only crime was to be ordinary members of our community out enjoying an evening with friends. Others were injured, and many more continue to carry the scars of that night. For the McMurray and Groves families, the effects of that bombing did not end when the debris was cleared. The pain, grief and loss that they experienced continues to have an impact on them.

I place on record my sincere thanks to the York Road Historical Society for organising such a dignified event. In particular, I pay tribute to Jim Bolland and Brian Boyd, the current owner of the Times Bar, for the immense amount of work that they undertook. I also acknowledge the many organisations and individuals who supported the event. Most importantly, I thank the McMurray and Groves families, who were represented on the evening. Despite 50 years of pain and loss, they have continued to honour the memory of their loved ones with dignity and grace.

I am particularly grateful to them for allowing us to open a new memorial to Edward and Robert. As part of the commemoration, a new mural was unveiled, providing a lasting tribute from our community to those who were murdered in cold blood.

Fifty years on, we remember those men with honour and pride, their lives taken by republican terrorists just because they were Protestants. Edward McMurray and Robert Groves will continue to be remembered proudly by the North Belfast community. Today and every day, we remember their families and loved ones.

Ms Ferguson: Yesterday was an important day. Supported by the United Nations, it was a day focused on promoting the dignity, rights, empowerment and independence of older people in all our communities. For World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, I will speak to the fact that, with our rapidly ageing population, we require a renewed focus across all Departments. Elder abuse remains under-recognised, under-diagnosed, under-reported and, therefore, overlooked.

Elder abuse can take several forms, including physical, psychological, emotional and financial abuse, as well as neglect. Devastatingly, it often occurs because older people lack visibility, protection, care and community-based supports alongside access to services. Only concerted and coordinated action can create a society for all ages.

The Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill will provide an opportunity to introduce targeted protections from offences motivated by a person's vulnerability. We will scrutinise the need for enhanced protections that recognise the variants of stereotyping, prejudice, intersectionality and discrimination. The Department of Health's Adult Protection Bill will also be important to the creation of a comprehensive legal framework for safeguarding adults at risk of harm that will enable those responsible for abuse or neglect to be held accountable. Through the Criminal Law (Adult Safeguarding) Bill 2026, our colleagues in the South of Ireland are progressing similar provisions to protect at-risk adults whose ability to guard themselves against violence, exploitation or abuse by another person is significantly impaired.

The Minister for Communities should respond to the recent research by Siobhan Casey, the Older People's Commissioner, who calls for legislation to prohibit no-fault evictions in order to protect a growing body of vulnerable, older private renters. I ask all Ministers in their respective Departments to continue to advocate, educate, raise awareness and enhance available protections for older people.

Ms Brownlee: I recognise the outstanding success of the Royal Landing celebrations held in Carrickfergus on Saturday. Once again, thousands of people lined the streets of our historic town to witness what can only be described as a spectacular re-enactment of one of the most important moments in Ulster's history: the landing of King William III at Carrickfergus on 14 June 1690. For one weekend, history was truly brought to life. Families, visitors, local residents and tourists were immersed in the history of a defining chapter of our heritage and culture. The sights, sounds and atmosphere allowed us not only to celebrate our past but to provide a really important educational experience for a new generation. The Royal Landing has become much more than an event. It showcases everything that is best about Carrickfergus and beyond, from the magnificent historical re-enactment to the participation of over 40 marching bands, Orange lodges, children's entertainers, pipers, Highland dancers, Lambeg drummers, community groups, living history performers, volunteers and many more.

The weekend demonstrated the vibrancy and cultural richness of our communities, and I pay tribute to everybody who was involved in such a successful event. What makes it so special, however, is its uniqueness. There is nothing quite like it. It is an authentic cultural experience rooted in the history of Carrickfergus. I was privileged on the day to speak to so many people from Australia, Canada, Wexford, Liverpool and beyond. That is why, in recent months, so many people have been disappointed to hear such cultural events and programmes associated with our important heritage and culture being classed as "vanity projects" by Sinn Féin. Such remarks fail to recognise the immense value that the events bring to our communities.

They overlook the volunteer time, the hours that are taken to preserve our history, the young people who spend their evenings participating in bands and cultural organisations and the thousands who attend with pride and enthusiasm. The scenes witnessed in Carrickfergus at the weekend provide the strongest possible response to those comments. The crowds speak for themselves; the success speaks for itself; and the community pride speaks for itself. It is far from being a vanity project; it is a celebration of important history, cultural tourism, education and community spirit, and we cannot wait to see it grow further.

Mr T Buchanan: Two weeks ago, I attended a special memorial service in Castlederg to mark the 38th anniversary of the brutal murder of Lance Corporal Michael Darcy on 4 June 1988 by the IRA, the bedfellows of Sinn Féin. While the IRA, which was responsible for decades of murder, violence, intimidation and human rights violations, claimed responsibility for the murder, there is one thing that it could never claim: justification. There was no justification for the murder of Michael Darcy. Michael Darcy, who was only 28 years old, lived with and cared for his elderly mother. He was her main carer. The only reason that he, like so many others in Castlederg, was murdered was that he was a Protestant and a unionist and upheld law and order. His murder was an attack not only on him but on the rule of law, on the right to life and on every citizen in the unionist community in Castlederg.

Earlier on the evening of 4 June 1988, Michael, a founding member of Castlederg Young Loyalists Flute Band, had attended a band parade in my village of Drumquin and then went on to Beragh. On his return home that night, as he drove his car into his backyard, a gunman stepped out from behind the trees and pumped six bullets into his back. Michael died instantly. Michael's mother — an elderly woman who depended on her only son as her main carer — was waiting for him to come home. When she heard the gunfire, she knew that something was seriously wrong. She was an elderly woman left without her only son and left without her main carer. The gruesome reality is that, were she alive today and were she to meet the so-called First Minister for all and ask her why her son was murdered, we know what the answer would be: "Mrs Darcy, there was no alternative". Of course, there is always an alternative to murder. There always was and always is an alternative to murder.

Today, we honour the memory of Michael Darcy, one of Ulster's sons. We remember the entire community of Castlederg, who suffered the loss not only of Michael but of 28 other gallant men and women who stood to uphold law and order throughout our communities and lost their life as a result.

Mr Speaker: Very well timed, First Minister.

I have received notice from the First Minister and deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement. Before I call the First Minister, I remind Members that questions must be about the statement and nothing else.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

In compliance with section 52C of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the fifteenth institutional meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and the thirty-first plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, both of which were held at the NSMC joint secretariat office in Armagh on 8 May 2026. The deputy First Minister and I have agreed that I will provide the report and that we are making the statement on behalf of all Executive Ministers who attended.

I will begin with the institutional meeting. The deputy First Minister and I represented the Executive, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Helen McEntee TD, represented the Irish Government. Minister McEntee chaired the institutional meeting.

The NSMC discussed matters relating to the North/South implementation bodies and noted that the freedom of information code of practice is in the final stages of review and will be brought to a future NSMC meeting for approval. Ministers noted that a process is now under way to collectively review the grading of the CEO posts of the NSMC bodies.

The Council had a discussion on the developments in the wider policy environment. It noted the far-reaching global geopolitical developments that had taken place since the last meeting and discussed the current situation. The Council noted the economic impact in both jurisdictions of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East in particular. Ministers noted the pivotal role that Ireland will play in the EU from 1 July as president of the Council of the European Union. Ministers also noted the progress being made in key areas under the strategic partnership between the UK and the EU and the fact that cooperation between both jurisdictions will continue in the context of the evolving nature of those relations. The meeting closed with the NSMC agreeing to meet again in institutional format in late 2026.

Following the institutional meeting, the thirty-first plenary meeting of the NSMC took place. The deputy First Minister and I led the Executive delegation, and the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, led the Irish Government delegation. The deputy First Minister and I chaired the meeting.

In the opening remarks, the Council discussed the current global situation, including the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East and their impact on the island. The Council welcomed the ongoing work being undertaken to address the legacy of mother-and-baby institutions, including progress on benefit disregards that will ensure that related payments do not affect an individual’s entitlement to benefits, regardless of where on these islands they currently live. The NSMC also noted the continued commitment to improving access to records and the fact that officials will continue to engage on that important work.

The next item on the agenda related to business and trade matters. The Council had an exchange of views on international and domestic business and trade developments, including developments on US tariffs, recent steel safeguard announcements and current trade impacts arising from the conflict in the Middle East. Ministers agreed that, in what remains an evolving international trading environment, the two Administrations will remain engaged with each other on business and trade matters. The Council also recalled that, where appropriate, the NSMC sectors should continue to consider how agreed collaborative approaches can contribute to the promotion of economic growth. Ministers noted that the most recent combined figures for trade in goods and services between the two jurisdictions showed a total value of £14·5 billion or €17·2 billion in 2024.

We moved on to have a constructive discussion on ending violence against women and girls, acknowledging the unacceptably high levels of gender-based violence and violence against women and girls in both jurisdictions. The Council agreed that there is a need for a whole-of-society response to address that. Ministers also agreed that sport provides an appropriate avenue to explore joint working on prevention-focused interventions. Ministers also agreed to explore the potential for further collaboration on initiatives with a protection focus, including child protection in the context of gender-based violence. The Council recognised that human trafficking for sexual exploitation is a really significant issue in both jurisdictions that also has a cross-border dimension. It agreed that officials will continue to examine opportunities for co-operation in that area. Ministers welcomed a shared learning event that took place in Drogheda in March of this year that showcased the experience of rolling out Operation Encompass in the North.

The next topic of discussion was on infrastructure and investment cooperation. We noted the decision of the Department for Infrastructure to appeal the judgement against the A5 western transport corridor and the fact that the appeal is due to be held on 25 and 26 June. The Council noted the ongoing work by Waterways Ireland on the Ulster canal restoration project and welcomed the continued progress that has been made on the Narrow Water bridge main construction project. Ministers welcomed the continued collaboration to progress the recommendations of the all-island strategic rail review through the rail project prioritisation strategy developed by both Administrations and published in December. They also welcomed the signing on 7 May of the contract of almost €700 million for the Enterprise rail fleet, funded by the Government of Ireland, the Executive and the PEACE PLUS programme.

The Council noted the progress that has been made on the Ulster University Magee expansion project and that the outcome of the planning decision on the construction of a new teaching block is awaited. We welcomed the commencement of projects under the second call of the North/South research programme and the progress on delivery of collaborative research and innovation programmes under the Shared Island bioeconomy initiative; partnerships between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) and DAERA; and the co-centre programme.

The Council welcomed the announcement by the Irish Government in November 2025 of a Shared Island greenway development fund of €2 million to support the further development of greenways in the border region. The Council also welcomed the November 2025 announcement by the Irish Government that the Minister for Transport will introduce a new public service obligation (PSO) air service between Dublin Airport and City of Derry Airport in 2026.

Ministers welcomed the progress on the implementation of the PEACE PLUS programme and noted that discussions on allocations to successor programmes are taking place and that the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) has commenced the development of a successor programme.

We then discussed emergency planning and preparedness. The NSMC welcomed the regular and ongoing collaboration between officials in both jurisdictions on civil contingencies, resilience and emergency preparedness.

The Council also welcomed the sustained engagement between the jurisdictions to enhance strategic cooperation in the area of resilience and preparedness.

Ministers welcomed the fourth all-island disaster risk reduction conference, which was held on 29 and 30 April in Dundalk, and supported further discussions between the two Administrations on optimising cooperation on emergency preparedness, management, recovery and resilience.

The NSMC welcomed the announcement in November 2025 of a €5·9 million allocation from the Shared Island Fund to strengthen cooperation between the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and Ireland's National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management. That coordinated investment will expand training facilities, invest in interoperable urban search and rescue training equipment and procure a flood containment module. The Council noted that the two services and their parent Departments are working to finalise the approach.

We also welcomed the announcement in November 2025 of more than €4 million in PEACE PLUS funding for two projects on cross-border collaboration on emergency management — Training Across Communities for Tactical Interoperability for Cross-Border Safety (TACTICS) and Resilient Neighbours — delivered by fire and emergency services and local authorities for both jurisdictions.

The NSMC noted that, despite the global disruption to the supply of oil and gas and consequent price increases, there are currently no issues around security of supply across either jurisdiction, and officials will continue to monitor the situation jointly and update Ministers as necessary.

The Council noted that, since the last NSMC meeting in October, Ministers have met in nine sectoral formats, and the joint secretariat continues to work with both Administrations to facilitate NSMC meetings across all sectors.

The Council noted that corporate governance matters have been considered in each of the North/South implementation body sectors, including business plans, budgets and annual reports and accounts. It was noted that the Council appointed a number of board members to the North/South bodies and that the joint secretariat hosted a board member conference in February 2026.

The NSMC was advised that Ministers at relevant sectoral meetings have discussed collaboration to address climate change and loss of biodiversity and how agreed collaborative approaches can contribute to the promotion of economic growth and disability issues.

Finally, Ministers agreed a future schedule of NSMC meetings to take place across the various sectors in plenary and institutional format.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, you said that the NSMC discussed wider geopolitical developments. One geopolitical development particularly pertaining on a cross-border basis is the rise of the online right and racism. A week ago, we had race-based pogroms, or attempted pogroms, in this city. People are still homeless, and they are fearful of what the rest of the summer will bring. However, as yet, there has been no coherent response from the Executive Office, despite you and the deputy First Minister leading the Government jointly and having responsibility for community cohesion and race relations. Why has there been no coherent response? Why have you left it up to the community and voluntary sector to protect people? When will there be a coherent response on policing, community integration and keeping people safe for the rest of the summer?

Mrs O'Neill: Obviously, we are all deeply shocked and disturbed by what we saw on our streets last week, whether it was the horrific incident in north Belfast or, indeed, what happened afterwards. I agree that what we witnessed on our streets was reminiscent of the pogroms of previous decades. None of us wants to see that violence on our streets, and we all have a collective responsibility to be very strong in our political condemnation, standing firmly together as political parties and saying no to racism in our society.

Throughout last week, we had a response that was initially led by the PSNI. It dealt with the unrest on our streets and the incident on Monday night. The Executive met on two occasions last week. Equally, we had a number of cross-party statements to ensure that we all collectively condemned what had happened on our streets, and we have been actively working with all partner agencies. I have been to our hospitals with the deputy First Minister to meet our healthcare workers, and I have been on the ground in north Belfast to meet our community workers.

Just yesterday evening, we met our racial equality subgroup to discuss its concerns and what it is hearing directly from the communities, including identifying any gaps. We are absolutely determined to ensure that we plug those gaps. We have been looking for some time at the whole issue of community cohesion and what more we can do about it, because it will take all of us working together to ensure proper, good community cohesion across the board. We are looking at short-, medium- and longer-term interventions.

As I said, we met the racial equality subgroup yesterday to identify the gaps in communication, which was an issue that was raised with us. Protecting people is a policing responsibility, in the main, but we all have a role to play. That is why our Executive were working consistently throughout last week to respond to what was happening on our streets.

Mrs Mason: I welcome the First Minister's statement and the continued emphasis on real and practical North/South delivery, which is important. Will the First Minister provide an update on progress with the Narrow Water bridge? How will the Shared Island investment help to unlock tourism and economic potential in South Down?

Mrs O'Neill: The Narrow Water bridge is one of the most exciting examples of all-island cooperation. I was pleased to discuss the project at the NSMC and to receive an update. As the Member suggested, the bridge will deliver real and tangible benefits; it will be a new landmark and a game changer for tourism in South Down and the wider Newry and Mourne community. It will further transform and enhance connectivity, which can only support the local tourism and hospitality sectors in particular.

The Department for Infrastructure has worked closely with the Irish Government since early 2022, and it chaired the Narrow Water bridge subcommittee group that has led to the implementation of the bridge plan that has allowed it to progress to this stage. I am pleased to say that significant progress is being made. I commend the work of Minister Kimmins and her counterpart in the South, who have worked with Louth County Council and the local council to ensure that the project comes to fruition. It will be only a short time until we will gladly be there for the official opening of the project. It has been a long time in the making, but it is finally getting to the delivery point.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the First Minister for her statement. The Minister will know that two major road capital projects are on pause in my constituency: the A5 and the A4 Enniskillen bypass. Those two road projects are vital for connectivity in my area, but they are being hampered by the net zero climate change targets. First Minister, was there a discussion about the Irish Government's legislation that exempts major infrastructure projects from climate change legislation? What is the First Minister's view on similar legislation for Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: We are all absolutely committed to making sure that the A5 and the A4 are built. Those roads are a necessity. When we speak about the A5 in the House, we are often talking about it in the aftermath of a tragedy on that road. It is long beyond time that we get that road built.

The Executive are having the same challenges with infrastructure projects as other Governments across the world. We have actively discussed how we can remove any barriers that impede capital projects. If a capital project takes 15 years to be built after it is announced, the cost will be substantially different. We have to deal with all the issues that get in the way of our projects. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the Executive and all the political parties in the House are committed to ensuring that the A5, the A4 and other major capital projects are built. I have previously said clearly in the House that we have to look at the barriers and find ways to go around them.

Mr Dickson: I thank the First Minister for her statement. First Minister, what discussions, if any, have you had with the Irish Government about compensation from the institutions for the victims and survivors of the mother-and-baby homes? From working on the Bill, the Committee understands that the Irish Government have found it difficult to achieve that. We have worked tirelessly in Northern Ireland to see whether we can ensure that the institutions are made to pay for the horrible things that they did to people during that time. It would be useful to have that as an ongoing discussion.

Mrs O'Neill: I assure the Member that it is an ongoing discussion, because I concur with him: the institutions must pay. Unfortunately, as Members are aware, there has been a varying degree of response from the different institutions. Given that the Irish Government were ahead of us with their programme, their experience and learning should be applied to what we do. We should not try to recreate the wheel. If something works, we should pick it up; if something does not work, we should find an alternative way. It remains an ongoing conversation, as does our engagement with the various institutions about what they need to come forward with. I thank the Committee for its particular interest in that.

Mr Chambers: First Minister, thank you for your statement this morning. Under business and trade matters, the statement reports that the council:

Can you expand on the issue of US tariffs? Those tariffs could have some very serious implications for the economies of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

Mrs O'Neill: Given the global volatility right now, that remains a discussion at a lot of the sectoral meanings. We certainly had a good discussion about our economy and its potential, including its potential for growth. We also discussed the challenges, one of which is the uncertainty resulting from tariffs. Tariffs are now being used more frequently, meaning that there is less predictability for our economy, which creates trouble when we are planning for the future. That uncertainty is acutely felt right across our island. There is no doubt that the US is an important trade and investment partner for us. We want to continue to support opportunities for our businesses in the US market, but recent developments with tariffs and counter-tariffs mean that we can get caught in the middle. We have to continue to make the case for our economy here, and we will remain focused on the issue with the Irish Government as we move through the volatile times in which we are living.

Mr McGuigan: First Minister, you have spoken previously about the opportunities created as a result of our unique economic and trading position and about the increased potential that comes with all-island cooperation. Will you outline how the work of InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland is supporting further development of the all-island economy and ensuring that workers, families and businesses benefit from economic growth?

Mrs O'Neill: I referred to some figures in the statement. The recent combined figures for trade in goods and services between the jurisdictions showed a total value of £14·5 billion in 2024. That demonstrates that the continued growth of the all-island economy presents a major opportunity for our communities here and for many businesses across the North. The Member is therefore right to highlight the work that is being done to promote the all-island economy, such as the work of InterTradeIreland to maximise growth. The work that it does on driving cross-border collaboration, on supporting small to medium-sized enterprises and innovation, on facilitating trade and market access, on helping companies to access new markets and on sharing knowledge and leverage opportunities really strengthens the economy and is a key driver of economic growth.

Similarly, Tourism Ireland, as the body responsible for promoting the island as a leading global tourism destination, plays a critical role in supporting economic growth, job creation and balanced regional development. It helps promote economic growth through its support of sustainable benefits for SMEs and communities, of business events, of strategy and competitiveness, of productivity and of market diversification. All of that points to the fact that dual market access strengthens our competitiveness and creates opportunities for exporters and investors alike.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, last month, you attended the signing of a contract for a £500 million investment in new, faster and more modern Enterprise trains in Grand Central station. The hourly service has led to a significant increase in passenger numbers using that service, with up to 200,000 passengers a month boosting the thriving all-island economy and footfall in Belfast city centre and beyond. Given the huge success of the Enterprise service, will you work with the Dublin Government to ensure that more rail projects benefit from Shared Island Fund investment?

Mrs O'Neill: It was a good-news story to be in Grand Central station to welcome that development, because it is so huge and will be so significant for all-island connectivity. Ministers from across the island came to celebrate what was such a positive occasion. It is therefore vital that we continue to work together. As the Member said, it is a significant investment in monetary terms: £500 million. We will see additional trains, and there are hourly connections. That investment is making a positive and meaningful difference, and we want to replicate it right across the island. The statistics on the increased numbers of people travelling speak for themselves. They show that the better that we are connected across the island, the more beneficial that that will be for jobs and tourism equally. Minister Kimmins will continue to work with her counterpart in the South to deliver on the strategy, because rail represents a real opportunity to bolster our thriving all-island economy and to connect communities, as well as to decarbonise our transport network.

Ms Bradshaw: Mr Speaker, I apologise that I was not here for the start of the statement.

First Minister, very recently, Members attended the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association (NSIPA) plenary in Dublin. It was a wonderful opportunity for us to hear about some of the really good projects that are coming forward through the PEACE PLUS programme. What role will the North/South Ministerial Council have in shaping the next round of funding with a view to our consideration of PEACE PLUS through the prism of full cultural and ethnic diversity as opposed to the binary green/orange of the past?

Further to that, following on from the leader of the Opposition's contribution, while it is great that so many agencies slotted into place over the past few days, what will you do about long-term emergency planning for when that situation arises again, so that people know where to go for help?

Mrs O'Neill: The potential successor to PEACE PLUS was discussed because, obviously, at the summit that was held between Dublin and London back in March, they agreed in principle to a new phase of the PEACE PLUS programme from 2028 onwards. We discussed that because it is important that we shape it right for the society in which we live in 2026. That will involve widening the scope, ensuring that we incorporate all our communities and ensuring that, when the new programme comes forward, it will be in line with our needs in 2028. We all have a bit of work to do to shape that. Certainly, we have had initial conversations with the SEUPB on what that might look like.

In particular, there needs to be a focus on rural communities, as there was in the previous programme. More can be done there as well. We now need to continue the work around how to translate an agreement in principle into a tangible programme going forward. We will continue to discuss that issue. The Department of Finance is continuing to work with its counterpart in Dublin to develop the future programme.

When it comes to longer-term intervention and what we need to do here, as I have said previously, we are looking at what we can do in the short term to deal with the crisis immediately, because some of the interventions that we put in place to deal with the aftermath of the Ballymena riots in 2025 were impactful and made a difference. We are actively looking at what else we can do in the here and now, working with all our partner agencies. We are also looking towards longer-term cohesion. Over recent months, our officials have done a lot of work on what that could look like in the medium and longer term. We will say more about that when we have a finalised programme.

Miss Dolan: I thank the First Minister for her statement. Minister, can you comment on the recent growth of the all-Ireland economy and on the role of North/South cooperation in supporting economic development and prosperity across the island?

Mrs O'Neill: As I have said, tourism is very much an all-Ireland sector. Tourism Ireland does an excellent job in marketing the island internationally. Due to recent global events, we have, unfortunately, seen a dip in international tourism after many, many years of substantial growth. That is disappointing to see. However, it has been more than offset by a 15% increase in visitors from the 26 Counties coming north. That is an interesting factor. Again, a lot of those things are interconnected, and whether they are due to more connectivity across the island making it easier to travel, they are all really positive developments. We can see how the all-island economy is thriving and helping to compensate for a very difficult international situation.

Again, when it comes to tourism, its benefits are spread right across the island. They are not centralised in one area. There has been tourism growth in the Member's own backyard of Fermanagh, in particular. We have a lot of really exciting opportunities ahead of us. Whether it is the Fleadh Cheoil in Belfast or the Derry Halloween festival, a number of really huge events are happening across our island. Events such as those that we saw last week are so disheartening and saddening not only because of their impact on those who were targeted but because of the reputation and the world image of this place that they give us. I am sure that everyone in the House would concur that what we saw on our television screens last week does not reflect who we are as a people. We want to send that message very clearly.

Mr McNulty: I thank the First Minister for her statement. First Minister, you may have seen yesterday's 'Irish News' article by Angela McGowan, in which she said that, for too long, the North:

First Minister, it is great to hear you giving so much praise to the Department of the Taoiseach's Shared Island unit. Its vital capital investment has been essential to the delivery of cross-border roads and rail projects. When will we see some ambition from the North in delivering on and advancing the all-island strategic rail review so that, ultimately, we see trains pull into Portadown station having departed from Armagh?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, we have an ambitious piece of work on the all-island strategic rail review, and the 25-year plan sets out clearly where we need to target our investment to make a real difference. We have already made huge, practical strides forward, not least the eight additional hourly train services that we announced recently and the fact that that service has been availed of in such significant numbers. The investment of £500 million is tangible and concrete and shows our commitment to rail. The next step in delivering the objectives of the rail review is to develop joined-up governance arrangements. Then, we, as a collective Executive, will need to target capital investment at the infrastructure projects that we want to see delivered. I certainly want to see the fulfilment of the all-island strategic rail review.

Ms Murphy: First Minister, it was great to see you and the deputy First Minister meeting hotel and hospitality businesses in my home county of Fermanagh recently. As always, I acknowledge the vital role that those businesses play in driving tourism, attracting visitors and, of course, supporting our local economy. Do you agree that our hospitality sector deserves a level playing field and that the British Government should align the VAT rate for hospitality in the North with that in the South?

Mrs O'Neill: It was great to be in Fermanagh, where the deputy First Minister and I took the opportunity to engage with a range of hospitality businesses, even out on the lough. It was really heartening to see the positivity of those businesses, albeit that there are also big challenges, not least the fact that there is not a level playing field when it comes to VAT. We told the businesses that we had made the case directly to the British Government about creating a level playing field or at least giving us a pilot on VAT so that we can see what difference that would make.

We want businesses in Fermanagh to thrive. We do not want them just to survive; we want them to thrive. Individual businesses have their big plans. It does not make any sense that the local hospitality sector is at a disadvantage compared with their neighbours. We continue to make that case. It is not credible that you have a one business sitting on a 9% VAT rate and a neighbouring business sitting on 20%. That is a competitive disadvantage. At a time when just the cost of doing business is really challenging, we need to create a better and more level playing field for businesses. We will continue to make that case. We assure you that we will not miss an opportunity. The Department of Finance and the Finance Minister continue to raise that issue with the Treasury as well.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to update Members on the progress of the affordable rent programme. I am pleased to announce that I have made an award of £61·5 million of financial transactions capital (FTC) loan funding to Maple and May. I can also now provide information on the locations where we will see the first affordable homes of this type delivered in Northern Ireland.

Members will recall my previous announcement on this important initiative, when Maple and May was selected to act as the first affordable rent operator. I can now confirm that, since then, terms have been agreed and £61·5 million of FTC loan funding has been formally awarded to support delivery. That is a significant milestone and the next step towards those homes becoming available for rent. It means that we are moving from policy ambition to real, tangible delivery, providing the homes that people across Northern Ireland desperately need. In the coming weeks, the first scheme will be open for applications under the Maple and May affordable rent brand.

The programme represents a strong and innovative public-private partnership. An initial investment from my Department will act as a catalyst, leveraging substantial private capital alongside additional private revenue investment from Maple and May. Together, those bring the total value of the funding programme to more than £122 million over the 25-year loan term. Importantly, because it is loan funding, it allows me to continue to prioritise my capital budget towards grant funding for social housing, therefore maximising every available resource towards the delivery of new homes.

The homes delivered under the programme will be high-quality, new-build properties located across Northern Ireland. They will form part of mixed-tenure developments, as well as stand-alone schemes, helping to create balanced, sustainable communities where people can put down roots. Critically, the homes will be offered for rents at least 20% below local market levels. That is a meaningful saving for working households. Rents can be uplifted only once annually, in line with legislation on the private rented sector, with an effective cap in place. Homes will be targeted at lower-income households, and, alongside that affordability, tenants will benefit from greater security through longer tenancies in high-quality, well-maintained homes and access to support services when they need them.

I turn to delivery. The first scheme will be in Dungannon, where 15 two- and three-bedroom homes are being built alongside social housing. That will be the first mixed-tenure development of its kind in Northern Ireland. My goodness, even the Chairman of the Communities Committee is smiling; there is another moment for the history books. As this and other schemes near completion, they will be advertised by Maple and May for rent, and eligible households can apply for a tenancy. Those tenancies are deliberately targeted towards lower-income households to maximise impact. Further schemes will follow in this financial year in Newry, Craigavon and Lisburn, and additional locations are planned, including Belfast and Londonderry, as part of an expanded roll-out next year. The first homes, which will be on the Old Eglish Road in Dungannon, are expected to be available to rent from later this summer, and I can confirm that advertising for those properties will begin shortly via the Maple and May website.

The programme is about providing real options for people. It will give people and families access to more affordable rents, greater stability and a genuine opportunity to plan ahead, whether that is about saving towards homeownership or simply securing a suitable, affordable home while waiting for access to social housing. Access to the homes will be fair, transparent and consistent. Eligibility criteria for a tenancy have been clearly set out in my Department’s policy. For example, households with a single adult must earn below £30,000, and those with two adults must earn below £40,000. That is intended to direct the tenancies to households that need them and can derive the most benefit from what is being offered.

There is no doubt that this type of housing is badly needed. Too many people are caught in the gap between being unable to access social housing and being unable to afford the cost of living in the private rental market. The programme is a direct response to that challenge. Let me be clear: this is only the beginning. Work is already under way to expand delivery beyond the initial 300 homes. My ambition is to see the model grow and play a meaningful role in addressing housing supply and housing need across Northern Ireland.

Alongside continued investment in social housing, the funding demonstrates a practical and innovative approach. It aligns with the objectives of the housing supply strategy to increase supply, broaden choice and ensure that people have access to the housing that they need. Over time, it will reduce pressure on our social housing waiting list, as households that meet the criteria can access affordable housing. It also reflects my personal commitment, as Minister, to increase housing stock, use the resources available as effectively as possible and adopt new approaches where they can make a difference.

My commitment goes far beyond the delivery of that new type of affordable housing for rent. The housing supply strategy seeks to accelerate the delivery of housing supply over the coming years. Shared ownership delivery through the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association is being expanded and plays a key role in enabling first-time buyers, in particular, to access affordable homeownership. Its over-55s scheme provides an important additional element of choice for people to move to homes that better suit their needs as they get older.

I continue to press at every opportunity for us to prioritise accessing the necessary capital funding to deliver the social homes that we need.

At the beginning of 2025-26, the outlook for the social housing development programme (SHDP) was poor, with a budget that would have achieved only 1,100 new social homes. I secured a further £42 million, resulting in the largest-ever investment in the social housing development programme, and achieved 1,765 new social home starts, representing a 17% increase in delivery year-on-year. There are now more than 6,000 new social homes under construction across Northern Ireland.

Looking forward, we need to do more. We need to secure more budget much earlier. In December 2025, £29 million was as much extra funding as the programme could absorb once in-year funding became available. I have, therefore, repeatedly pressed the Executive to earmark more funding for the SHDP. While there is some impact from that in the current Budget proposals, it is still not enough. That is why I have proposed to secure public-sector land instead of grant. The reviews of grant and design and the range of measures being explored or introduced will complement the SHDP in moving towards the housing supply targets. The measures include the New Foundations initiative, Housing Executive acquisitions and the housing supply action plan, which is now with the Executive.

I secured the major achievement of a commitment from the UK Government to consider Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) borrowing as part of the Northern Ireland fiscal framework discussions. In the meantime, urgent engagement continues between officials on the means to secure the financial viability of the Housing Executive and identify an interim solution to its investment need. I fully intend to make good on the commitments that I have made in this place and, in the supply strategy, to make sure that every household can have access to a quality, affordable and sustainable home that is appropriate for their needs and located in a thriving and inclusive community. That is what the new affordable rent homes will do. Ultimately, the programme is about more than bricks and mortar. It is about giving people security, providing stability and helping hard-pressed individuals and families to build a better future. I look forward to updating the House further as delivery progresses. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. There are more than 50,000 households on the housing waiting list here. Over the past decade, with the DUP and Sinn Féin at the helm, homelessness has increased by 120% here, so we welcome any initiative to create more homes. We have to get that right, however, and this initiative might warrant further interrogation. Is housing need being considered in either the location or allocation of these homes?

Mr Lyons: First, I welcome the Member's comments on the scheme. The simple answer to his question is yes, we are absolutely looking at need. We want to make sure that the money that we invest, whether it is from our own capital budget or, in this instance, financial transactions capital, goes to where it can make most difference. He will be glad to hear that the answer to the question is a simple one: the scheme will help areas that are most in need.

The Member will be aware that his constituency of Foyle is one of the areas where we have greatest housing demand. That is why, in the first phase, an additional 60 homes will be made available in his constituency. There are huge waiting lists, and I want to do more to make sure that we tackle the overall need for housing. This scheme is one part of that, and it is small to start off with, but I want to make sure that it grows, as well as doing the other things that I have outlined today.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his statement. I can confirm that he could not have picked a better place to start than on the Old Eglish Road in Dungannon. I welcome the investment in housing, which is badly needed. I also welcome the other elements in the statement. There are important areas to be explored when it comes to issues around public land and Housing Executive borrowing.

The Committee for Communities has heard that, in the event of oversubscription, there could be a random element in the process of considering the eligibility criteria for allocation. I suspect that these homes will absolutely be oversubscribed in Dungannon and in other locations. In that case, could a system be put in place whereby you would align fully or closely with the Housing Executive points programme in order to ensure that, rather than allocation being random, housing need is fully addressed when allocations are made?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his comments. I am pleased, as is a Member behind me, that the first tranche of homes will be in Dungannon. It is important to note that we have pushed the programme forward so that we are not just talking about policy development but about homes that have been built and are ready for allocation. I look forward to that proceeding.

We have had extensive conversations about how we ensure that the people who need the homes most will get them. We will have an application process through which an individual will have to demonstrate that they can afford to pay the rent; that, for example, social housing is not the best option; and that the programme is right for them. After that, there will be a random selection process, because demand will almost certainly outstrip supply. That is the fairest way to do it, because everybody will be eligible in the same way. It is not the same as social housing; it will not be done on a points basis. However, the process can absolutely be kept under review. That is why we have 300 homes in the first place: lots of things are being done differently. It is important to note that this is the first time that such a programme has been offered in Northern Ireland. I want to make sure that it is done in the fairest way possible. The information that we have right now is that random selection is the best way to do it, but, of course, I want to keep it all under review, because I want to see the programme massively scaled up so that it can help many more people. We will keep it under review.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Communities Minister. It is really good news for my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone that the first homes will be built on the Old Eglish Road in Dungannon. Often, people in my constituency feel that such housing is centred in urban, Belfast-centric areas. Minister, how will you ensure a continued regional balance to this approach to providing housing across Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for her kind comments. I am pleased that we are seeing the scheme rolled out not just in a small number of locations but across Northern Ireland. In fact, in the initial tranche, eight of the 11 council areas in Northern Ireland will have access to some of the affordable rent accommodation that we have announced today.

We have need throughout Northern Ireland. Yes, absolutely, there are higher numbers in some places, but, across Northern Ireland, the need is now consistently high in places where people are struggling. I am committed to making sure that we get a balance and spread and that the programme is not restricted to certain areas. I want to see it ramped up across Northern Ireland so that we deliver more and more. It is new, innovative and does not affect the social housing development programme. It will take no resource away from that. I want to keep putting investment into that programme, absolutely, but here is something new that will work and will deliver for people in the Member's constituency within a matter of weeks because of the decisions that I have taken on coming into this office. Let us ramp it up and ensure that we continue to have a spread across Northern Ireland.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. The announcement of any new homes across Northern Ireland is welcome. You said that the programme will reduce pressure on the social housing waiting list. What modelling has your Department undertaken to demonstrate that claim? How many households do you hope or expect to move from the waiting list into affordable rented accommodation over the next five years? Will you publish that analysis?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to publish any of the analysis that has been done. However, when we put 300 new homes on the market for people who have not otherwise been able to avail themselves of homes in the private rented market because of the cost, it is inevitable that a large number of them will be on the social housing waiting list, and probably very far down it, because the housing problems that we face in Northern Ireland can be summed up in one issue: supply. By creating the affordable rent programme, taking no money out of the social housing development programme but using financial transactions capital and private investment, we are increasing supply. Three hundred homes represents a great start, but there is so much more to do. If we want to reduce the social housing waiting list in Northern Ireland, we need to increase supply across all 10 years. That is what today's announcement is about. It is what we are achieving.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome, as colleagues from Fermanagh and South Tyrone have done, the imminent release of 15 new two- and three-bedroom houses on the Old Eglish Road. The size of those homes is important.

Although rents are set at 20% below market rates, many households on low incomes still struggle with affordability. What safeguards are therefore in place to ensure that those houses will remain genuinely affordable in practice over time? How will the Minister prioritise access for those most in need, rather than those who are simply able to meet the income thresholds?

Mr Lyons: Compared with the local open market rent in that area, rates will initially be set at a discount of 20% . The Member is right to ask how we can ensure that those homes are protected. That is why, for the programme, the increase is subject to a cap of CPI plus 1%, up to a maximum of 5%. The intention is to ensure that tenants are not exposed to the financial shock of a larger rent increase and also to ensure that their landlords secure the revenue necessary to maintain the homes to the very high standards to which they will be constructed. I hope that that provides the Member with some reassurance.

We want to make sure that the programme is used by those who need it most. It is not a scheme for everybody. There will be some for whom social housing is the best option, while there will be others for whom the private market is still best. We are trying to target those in the middle who are struggling to access either. I think that that will come to fruition as the programme is rolled out.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I remind Members of a convention in the Assembly that is quite well followed. It is that Members should not walk across the line of sight between the Speaker and the Member who is speaking. I know that Mr Dunne may not be fully aware of that, but I do know somebody who is. Let us have common courtesy in the Chamber, please.

Mrs Mason: Minister, unfortunately, the announcement is not such great news for South Down and its constituents. You talked about making some progress on achieving borrowing powers for the Housing Executive. Will you expand on that? Will the Housing Executive be able to use those powers to start building houses again?

Mr Lyons: I hope that I can give the Member some comfort today. Although we do not have any announcements for her constituency today — I share her frustration in that regard for my constituency — we are looking to develop and ramp up the scheme. I have given very clear instructions about my wanting to see that happen. By next March, we will have a plan for how we can significantly ramp up the scheme. It is part of the housing supply strategy action plan, which is now with the Executive. I hope that Executive colleagues will support me with that.

We have made more progress on Housing Executive borrowing than we ever have done before, and I believe that we can make a breakthrough. While we are waiting for that, however, I have asked for work to continue so that, when we access those borrowing powers, we are in a position to start. I tasked the former chief executive of the Housing Executive, who has now left her post and is in another role, with making sure that, if and when those powers are made available, the Housing Executive is ready. There is a significant investment need in current Housing Executive properties. That is to where some of the borrowing powers will go.

I also want to make sure that we build more homes. Yes, we need to make sure that we improve the standard of our existing stock, but we need to start building more homes as well. Overall, we have been trying to increase the number of houses in Northern Ireland. We are looking at the grant rate and the design guide so that we can make our current housing grant go further. It is also why we are looking at land, instead of just grant, and at intermediate rent. We are doing everything that we can to make progress. I hope that more homes in the Member's constituency and my constituency will be announced in further rounds.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Minister. This is, of course, great news for Northern Ireland. You will know, as I do, that our constituents in East Antrim are crying out for affordable homes. Therefore, have there been any identifiable sites or have discussions been under way on the East Antrim area, and do you commit to, of course, extending the scheme throughout Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I want to make sure that this is expanded and that we have substantial numbers. I believe that this is innovative and can make a real difference. Although the 300 homes will be very welcome to those who are going to get them, we need to see many, many more. I want this to become a sizable proportion of our housing offering in Northern Ireland, so my team will be doing everything that it can to ramp this up. I look forward to many, many of these homes being made available in East Antrim as well.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

In his statement, he said that the scheme would eventually be rolled out to Newry, Craigavon, Lisburn, Belfast and Derry. The locations are all cities, with the exception of Dungannon. I hope that, in future, rural areas will be considered as well. However, my immediate question is this, Minister: when can we expect the 300 new homes to be built and have tenants living in them?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful for the Member's question, and we will certainly do everything that we can to get as many homes as possible in new areas that have not been mentioned yet, as I said in response to Cheryl Brownlee.

On the question of when the homes will be available, as I said, homes in Dungannon are going to be ready within the next few weeks. In the other phases, homes in Craigavon will be ready in autumn 2026, then Newry and Lisburn in the spring of next year. There will be further allocations in 2027 in Londonderry, Craigavon and Antrim. We are seeing houses being built already, and they will soon be allocated. These are not homes that are in the pipeline and will be available somewhere down the line. Some of them will be available very shortly, and others are in construction. At the same time, we are going to be looking at the policy to make sure that this can be ramped up and we can have even more in the construction pipeline after that.

Mr Harvey: Can the Minister advise the House of the standards for these homes? Will they follow the current design guide? Minister, maybe you can give the House an update on the design guide review.

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. These homes will be constructed to the design guide plus, if you like. They will be the same as social homes, however, they will have a turnkey finish. I know that that will be very welcome so that people can move straight in. They are being finished to a very high standard because I understand that we want to target the homes towards people who will be struggling a little. Perhaps they will be struggling to pay full market rent, and we want to make sure that the houses are ready for them to move into. That will be the condition of the stock, and the standard to which they will be built will align with the design guide.

I think that there are changes that can be made to the design guide. Housing associations are very keen that we look at that. That is progressing, and I hope to have an update towards September so that we can make sure that we progress with that and make it easier and more straightforward to build social homes.

Miss Dolan: Minister, I am pleased to see that there is a good geographical mix of the new homes, and, of course, I welcome the homes on the Old Eglish Road in Dungannon. However, I notice that Fermanagh is missing. Can the Minister commit today to ensuring that Fermanagh gets its fair share of these 300 homes?

Mr Lyons: Unfortunately, not as part of the 300 homes. I do not think that we are going to be in a position to do that. Apologies, again, to Deborah on that one. I do not think that I have ever had questions on a statement where nearly every Member from Fermanagh and South Tyrone has asked me a question. It is unlikely, at this stage, that Fermanagh will be included in the current 300. However, as I have made very clear — I hope that the message has gone out very simply today — I want to see this programme ramped up. This is new and innovative. We are doing something different. It does not come at any cost to the social housing development programme or the Northern Ireland Executive Budget. We underutilise financial transactions capital, and this is an example of how we can use tens of millions of pounds more. I want to see it ramped up, and, yes, I want to see more homes in Fermanagh as well.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. As others have said, any news of new homes being built is positive. Please take my question in the spirit in which it is meant: why was the £61·5 million of public loan support for this project not used for social houses? How do we know that this will be the best use of public money? Were these houses already being built? Will this programme have a genuine impact on our waiting lists, more so than social housing would?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. Housing associations are unable to be involved in this sort of work, because current private tenancy legislation excludes housing associations from owning properties that are let as any form of private rental. Therefore, we are limited in how we can use financial transactions capital. This is a new and different way to use it, and one that will be able to deliver results. I have significantly ramped up the amount of FTC that the Department is using, particularly across housing. Changes to how FTC can be used are coming, and I want to explore the use of FTC across all areas of the Department. I want to get as much grant money as I can. I want to make sure that it goes as far as it can. I want to look at where else we can use FTC. This is one way in which we can use it, and that is why we are using it in this way. It is a start, and I want to do more.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement. How can he ensure that this programme is scaled up? Is Causeway Coast and Glens one of the eight council areas that he referenced, given the pressures that there are with holiday homes and second homes in the north coast area?

Mr Lyons: I know that this is becoming a common theme: there are areas that have been successful in this round and others that have not. However, I want to make it clear that I am determined that this will be available everywhere in Northern Ireland. I wanted to get it out as quickly as we could, and we found the available sites. I commit to him that we will do everything that we can to make sure that the Causeway Coast and Glens area is included in the next tranches, as we expand the programme. I am well aware of, and have been working on, the issues that are specific to his constituency. We are aware of the impact that holiday homes are having, and work on that is ongoing through the housing supply strategy. I know about the housing need in his constituency. That is why we will continue to build more social homes. I want to make sure that this programme will also be available to low-income households that need support.

Mr McNulty: It is worth saying, again, that there are 50,000 people on the housing waiting lists and that, over the past 10 years, with Sinn Féin and the DUP — the long-standing establishment parties and partners in government — at the helm, homelessness has increased by 120%. I welcome your statement, Minister. Any initiative to alleviate homelessness and help with the cost of housing is very important. However, in the absence of a Budget, can that positive initiative proceed? How will having no Budget impact on your ability to deliver social housing this year?

Mr Lyons: First, I would have thought that he might have liked to welcome the fact that, in the first phase, we will be delivering an additional 18 homes in his Newry and Armagh constituency. That will help 18 families or individuals who are hard pressed, cannot get to the right position on the social housing waiting list or cannot afford homes in the private rental market. This helps; it makes a difference. They are small numbers — yes — but we want to ramp it up. It is important that we acknowledge that this has never been tried before. I came into office and said, "I want to push this forward". We now have homes being built, and, within a few weeks, applications will be made for homes that have already been constructed. Let us celebrate that and say, "We've tried something new. It's working. It's making a difference". We are going to ramp it up and achieve things that will be of benefit to the people in Northern Ireland.

We also need to do what I outlined in my statement: make sure that we have more social homes. That is why I want to see a Budget in place that allows us to proceed and meet the targets that have been set in the Programme for Government.

I am still making that case to Executive colleagues. I hope that that can be achieved, because housing is one of the most foundational and fundamental things, and that is why I put in that bid.

I am not just sitting here asking for more money. Yes, I would love that, but I have also taken the initiative to think how we can make the money that we have go further. That is why we are looking at the housing association grant. That has been changed so that housing associations can stretch that and do a little more, and, by doing so, we can build more homes. That is why we are also looking at the design guides. How can we make it more effective for us to build homes? How can we make it cheaper for us to build homes, while still at a high standard, by taking out anything that is unnecessary. This is one part of the overall puzzle as we seek to improve housing supply. I hope that the Member recognises the steps that have been taken and welcomes the fact that we have got more homes for Newry.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Just before I call the final speaker, Matthew, were you indicating that you wanted in on this?

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): OK. Thank you very much indeed. My subliminal valve is not working well today.

Mrs Cameron: I apologise for missing the beginning of the Minister's statement, which is very welcome. I appreciate the mention of Antrim, in my constituency of South Antrim; any clarity around future plans regarding the provision would be welcome.

Minister, deposits are often a huge challenge for many first-time renters. What provision can you make for those who find it hard to pull together a deposit?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member. I can confirm to her that there will be 20 new homes in her constituency on the Niblock Road in Antrim. They will be five-person, three-bedroom homes, which will help families there that are struggling.

The Member raises an important point about deposits. They can be out of reach for many people who cannot access the private rental sector for that reason, especially with average rents now being over £1,000 per month in Northern Ireland. If someone is asked for a deposit of one, two or three months, that could be a substantial amount. That is why, under the scheme, there will be a deposit builder in place so that, over a period of months, families can contribute to the required deposit. That is something new that is being tried for the scheme and will be welcome, as it will not serve as a barrier to those who would like to access the scheme but for whom a deposit might be a concern. It gives them a few months to build up a deposit, and that should be welcomed.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that everything is OK with you. I believe that you said "subliminal valves". I am not sure what those are, but I am sure that everybody in the Chamber would be keen that you get those addressed before too long. [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): It is my birthday, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Happy birthday, Mr Deputy Speaker. The warmest of happy birthdays. I am sure that we are all very pleased to be here with you on that date.

Minister, I acknowledge that my party and I encouraged you to make use of FTC. It is important to use FTC to build homes, but we want to ask about the detail regarding the 20% reduction on market rents. How will market rent be calculated, what specific metrics and data will be used, and what are the safeguards against, for example, inflation of rents in a given geography? How can we be sure that there will be a genuine reduction of at least 20% on local market rates? What data will be used?

Mr Lyons: First of all, on behalf of the whole House, I am sure, I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: My present to you is 20 affordable homes on the Niblock Road in Antrim. [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Put them in Ballyclare, Minister.

Mr Lyons: I hope that that is welcome.

I understand the Member's concerns about a genuine 20% reduction. We will use a number of measures to ensure that we have an accurate forecast of the market rent in those areas. Further details on that can be found as part of the policy development process on the Department's website. I am sure that that can be sent directly to the Member so that he can see.

I want to make sure that the scheme is fair and that there is a genuine 20% discount for those who need it. Additionally, that is why there will be a limit on increases to a cap of the consumer prices index (CPI) plus 1% up to a maximum of 5%. That should be welcomed. I recognise that the Member recognises that this is a good news story, that it is a start and that is part of the overall package that I am bringing in to make sure that we do what we can with what we have to deal with the housing crisis that we face in Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions on the statement. We will take our ease for a few moments while we get ready for the next item.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Mr Andrew Muir, to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group that contains 36 amendments dealing with reviews and procedural and technical matters.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debate on the single group of amendments, they should address all the amendments on which they wish to comment. Once the debate has been completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We now come to the single group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 36. I remind Members that a number of the amendments are consequential to one another or are paving amendments. Specifically, Amendment No 17 is consequential to amendment No 4. Amendment Nos 8, 10, 11, 13 and 18 are consequential to amendment No 5. Amendment Nos 9, 12, 14 to 16 and 20, 21 and 30 are consequential to amendment No 7. Amendment No 27 is a paving amendment to amendment No 28. Amendment No 31 is a paving amendment to amendment No 34. Amendment No 35 is consequential to amendment No 33. Amendment No 36 is consequential to amendment No 28.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Muir: I advise Members that most of the amendments that I have tabled arise from deliberations during Committee Stage. I express my deep appreciation of the sterling work of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in its detailed consideration of the Bill.

Amendment No 1 proposes to align the wording of clause 2(2)(c), which refers to land "adversely affecting amenity", with that of clause 1(1), which refers to a building or other land being "detrimental to" the amenity.

Amendment No 2 is to clause 4. The amendment proposes to strengthen clause 4 and close any potential loopholes in section 85 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which provides for the offence of carrying out unauthorised works on a listed building. Officials in the Department for Communities' historic environment division (HED) confirmed that listed building consent for alterations or demolitions does not strictly relate to condition; it relates to architectural or historic character. The word "condition" needs to be inserted because, if the reference was removed, an interested person would be obliged to comply with all statutory provisions in relation to the building, which is not the policy intention. For example, if a building is in a state of disrepair, it may not be possible to comply with all health and safety obligations. Therefore, while the intention appears to be clear, I agreed that there is an opportunity to strengthen the drafting of clause 4(5) by revisiting the reference to "condition" to include reference to the obligation to comply with the building being a heritage site, as defined in clause 17.

Amendment No 3 is to clause 7. The amendment is a carbon copy of amendment No 2 but applies to clause 7(6) by also clarifying the obligation to comply with the building being a heritage site.

Amendment Nos 4 to 18 are to clause 11. The suite of amendments to clause 11 arose following discussions between my officials and the Department for Communities, which had concerns that clause 11 had the potential to cause confusion and conflation with the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, which, Members will recall, was amended in 2024 in light of the Victoria Square situation.

Clause 11 is a direct replication of article 65 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which councils will already be familiar with. With the ongoing DFC work on new building safety legislation and recent post-Grenfell reports criticising the fragmentation in that area, the proposed amendments will remove any reference to defective premises. The provisions in clause 11 are not meant to overlap with the DFC legislation, but it is proposed that the defective premises notice be renamed "urgent abatement notice". That aligns more closely with the standard abatement notice provisions in Part 7 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which we, of course, reference in clause 11(1)(b). These are cosmetic changes that do not alter the intention behind the provision.

Amendment Nos 19 to 21 are to clause 12. Clause 12 enables councils to continue to recoup the cost of fencing a dangerous structure or site only until the danger has been removed. In cases where the owner has acted to remove the danger by repairing or demolishing a structure, councils should not be able to recover ongoing fencing costs, and they are content with that position. The amendment has been drafted in respect of ongoing maintenance and repair of fencing in cases where the property itself continues to be dangerous but the presence of the fence removes the danger. In that case, the fence presents an ongoing cost to the council, and the property owner has done nothing to address the danger presented by the building or site. There are also minor amendments to clause 12 that are consequential to the renaming of the defective premises notice in clause 11.

Amendment No 22 is to clause 16. Clause 16 allows councils to obtain information on buildings or land. The amendment was requested by district councils, and it would strengthen the powers and mirror those already available to councils under article 72 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 so that they can serve a notice requesting information on anyone such as a solicitor or other person with a financial interest in the land.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Minister giving way. On that point, the Minister will know that I have been supportive of the general principles of the Bill, particularly given the impact of dereliction and dilapidation on my constituency of North Belfast.

There is one issue, Minister, in relation to ownership. You will be aware — I have written to you on a number of occasions about it — that Japanese knotweed is growing on some unregistered land in the lower part of North Belfast and that that is impacting on local residents. The Bill was seen as the vehicle and the opportunity for councils to take action on that, given its impact on privately owned properties.

Will the Minister commit to saying that his amendments will not dilute councils' ability to take action against such land, which, through no fault of their own, impacts on my constituents?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his intervention and for outlining that issue. I have received a number of items of correspondence and questions for written answer about that invasive species and my responsibility to act. The key issue is identifying the landowner. I will write to the Member to set out the law. There is an obligation to address that issue, and I know how it can affect properties. Through the Bill, we are seeking to give councils increased powers to act, while recognising that those powers are discretionary. Councils will decide to exercise their powers in cases in which they have confidence in their ability to trace the owner of the building. As I said, I will write to the Member to set out the law, because it is an important issue, about which people are concerned.

Amendment Nos 23 and 24 will make minor amendments to clause 17 to clarify that a council's functions as they relate to heritage sites are:

Amendment Nos 25 and 26 are to clause 18. Clause 18 gives councils various powers of entry relating to their functions under the Bill. The amendments were requested by councils and will give them an additional power similar to that which is provided in section 177 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, whereby a warrant may be sought from a lay magistrate where entry has been refused. Councils must have the power to enter by force in cases of emergency.

Amendment Nos 27 and 28 are to clause 19. Clause 19 provides for a discretionary fixed penalty to be offered by councils to discharge liability for conviction for a breach of a maintenance notice and for a failure to provide information without reasonable excuse. The amendments are necessary in order to make it clear that the fixed penalty to discharge liability for conviction for a failure to comply with the maintenance notice is up to the date of payment of the fixed penalty. If, however, the person continues to fail to comply with the maintenance notice after they have paid the fixed penalty, it does not affect the criminal liability for continued failure to comply with the maintenance notice after that date. In other words, the amendments will make it clear that payment of a fixed penalty does not mean that a person does not have to comply with the terms of a maintenance notice.

Amendment No 29 will make a minor amendment to clause 21 as a result of the amendments to clause 19. Clause 21 currently provides that there is nothing to prevent a different notice being served in the case of land where an earlier notice applied, such as in cases in which dilapidation has become worse and a stronger notice would therefore be more appropriate. The amendment will allow the same notice to be served, meaning that, where a maintenance notice has been served but a fixed penalty notice was issued to discharge liability for conviction, and no remedial works were carried out, the council can issue a fresh maintenance notice.

Amendment No 30 is to clause 25. It is consequential to the renaming of the "defective premises notice" provided for in clause 11 and substitutes references to "defective premises notice" in clause 25. Amendment No 31 is also an amendment to clause 25 and has resulted from proposed new clause 28A in amendment No 35, which Daniel McCrossan tabled. I seek guidance from the top Table on whether I am permitted to address Daniel's amendments now or should do so in my winding-up speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You may address them now, Minister.

Mr Muir: I will address his amendments at the end of my opening remarks, if that is OK. I will speak to my amendments first, after which I will address Daniel McCrossan's amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am content with that.

Mr Muir: Amendment No 32, which will insert new clause 28A, was proposed by the AERA Committee. I was pleased to accept it, as it will ensure that an initial review of how the Act has been working in practice will take place no later than three years after the Act comes into operation. Thereafter, there will be a review every five years, the terms of which will be set out in regulations, which are to be made at a future date. Similar provisions exist in the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

Amendment No 36 is to schedule 1 and is consequential to the changes to clause 19 that are proposed in amendment Nos 27 and 28. Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 requires a small amendment in order to make it subject to the amended clause 19.

Those are my amendments. I will now address Daniel McCrossan's amendments. I then have a few summing-up remarks to make before we continue the debate.

I do not propose to support the amendments that Daniel McCrossan has tabled, and I urge the Assembly to do likewise. Amendment No 33 proposes a new clause on the periodic review of dilapidated buildings etc. It seeks to impose a statutory requirement on my Department to appoint a person or body to conduct a periodic review of dilapidated buildings. The most appropriate bodies to conduct any review of the level of dilapidation in an area are councils. Their officers are on the ground every day, and they are aware of the problem buildings and neglected sites in their areas. My Department does not have operational responsibility in that area or the relevant technical expertise in key matters such as structural engineering and building safety.

Appointing an outside body — at a significant cost to the public purse, I might add — would not represent value for money. It would also risk duplication of work and poor use of public funding, with councils maintaining their own records. A centralised assessment of that nature would place practical limitations as it would be too restrictive to take account of the flexibility in the legislation to enable individual councils to determine what they consider to be dilapidated, dangerous and so on.

I will highlight to Members that the Bill initially contained a clause that would have imposed a statutory duty on councils to carry out a survey of the levels of dilapidation in their areas within 18 months of the commencement of the Act. Following the survey, councils would then have had a duty to compile, maintain and publish a register of the buildings and land identified during the survey. The Department recognised that that would have placed a significant burden on councils, and the clause was removed as the Department was keen that no additional statutory duties were placed on councils, and, of course, the Bill does not do so. That is not to say that councils should not compile relevant information in their areas to enable them to carry out work to tackle dilapidation, but it should be at the discretion of each individual council as to whether it does so.

Amendment No 34 proposes a new clause on an accessible register of action taken. I do not support amendment No 34 and urge Members to join me in that. The amendment seeks to place a statutory burden on councils by requiring them to establish, maintain and publish a register of action taken under the legislation. As I just touched on, the same argument as to why the Department dropped a clause that would have placed a statutory duty on councils to conduct a survey and maintain registers is also appropriate in the case of amendment No 34.

When drafting the Bill, the Department was quite clear that no additional statutory duties would be placed on councils. The amendment, if carried, would have the potential to create significant additional burdens for councils. If members of the public or elected representatives, for that matter, wish to know what action councils have taken under the new legislation, they can go through the usual channels to request that information.

The two minor amendments are amendment Nos 31 and 35 to clauses 25 and 30. They are predicated on the proposed new clauses, and, in asking Members to reject amendment Nos 33 and 34, those would fall, but the Speaker will guide them with regard to the protocol associated with that.

We can have a discussion around this, but I will close with the responsibilities of councils arising from the legislation. It is important to take a perspective in relation to that. The Dilapidation Bill, which we are debating here today at Consideration Stage, will consolidate and modernise outdated Victorian legislation to help regenerate our cities, towns and villages by giving councils the power to better tackle the blight of dilapidation.

There has been significant and sustained engagement with local government on the Bill, helping to shape robust, fit-for-purpose legislation that grants councils discretionary powers equivalent to those now long established in Great Britain and Ireland. As Minister, I value the constructive relationship that has been fostered with councils, and I am grateful for the extensive engagement by local government throughout the earlier policy consultation process and, again, since work restarted on the Bill following restoration of devolved government in 2024 and the introduction of the Bill to the Assembly in June 2025.

I, along with my senior leadership team and officials who have been working directly on the Bill, have met council representatives on multiple occasions, and four local government-sponsored amendments have been tabled to strengthen the Bill, including new provisions on costs and warrants to access properties. Although proposed changes that could potentially make the Bill inoperable are not being taken forward by the Department, they will instead be addressed by statutory guidance as in other parts of the UK.

The Assembly's Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee undertook thorough scrutiny of the Bill as part of an extended Committee Stage. I thank the Committee for its work, which involved several briefings from the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), and its report, which indicated that the Committee was content to proceed to the Consideration Stage.

Dilapidation policy in Northern Ireland has been in development since 2015, with work on the Bill being undertaken continuously over the past two years. That work has culminated in the current draft of the Bill, which includes new discretionary powers to issue maintenance notices to tackle low-level dilapidation. The powers are already available in England, Scotland and Wales, and councils in Northern Ireland supported the powers in their response to the public policy consultation. The Bill does not impose new statutory duties or financial burdens on councils. Rather, it gives councils the flexibility to use the new powers, as resources permit. There are extensive new cost recovery mechanisms and a requirement for DAERA to publish statutory guidance in order to give greater clarity than exists in the present set-up. The Department will continue to work with local government to develop the guidance, which will include terminology, definitions and thresholds. Hardwiring that into the Bill could inhibit use of the legislation, and that is why I have proposed amendments at Consideration Stage today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Mr Robbie Butler.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and happy birthday to you.

With your indulgence, before I address the amendments, I wish to say a few words about the Committee Stage of the Bill in my capacity as the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Committee received 30 responses to its call for views from individuals, organisations, government bodies and businesses, along with a further 11 written submissions. The Committee held 14 oral evidence sessions with interested organisations and local government. The Committee explored a wide range of issues and concerns with departmental officials, who were always readily available to the Committee. I thank those officials. The Committee deliberated on the provisions of the Bill and proposed amendments at 10 further meetings, which concluded with its formal clause-by-clause considerations on 7 May 2026.

Throughout its consideration of the Bill, the Committee sought clarification on the intent, application and proportionality of the proposed powers, and explored how issues raised during the call for views might be addressed through proposed amendments or the supporting statutory guidance. Overall, there was broad support for the Bill's objective of equipping councils with modernised and consolidated powers to address dilapidated, dangerous and neglected buildings in the interests of amenity, public safety and community well-being. Stakeholders widely recognised the detrimental impact that poorly maintained and derelict buildings can have on local environments, particularly where such properties pose risks to public safety or undermine regeneration efforts. However, our evidence also highlighted concerns about the capacity of and financial constraints on councils; the need for clarity on the definitions and thresholds; and the importance of ensuring that councils apply their powers consistently.

Arising directly from the council's evidence and deliberations were a number of amendments that the Minister agreed to take forward, including amendments to existing clauses and the introduction of a new review clause as requested by the Committee. Those amendments demonstrate the effectiveness of the Committee's scrutiny and the value of the extended Committee Stage. I commend the Minister and the Department for engaging with the Committee on the amendments, because it is always better to do it in that manner. While NILGA and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE) initially declined to give oral evidence, the Committee always wished to place a particular emphasis on engagement with local government, in recognition of the central role that councils play in implementing such legislation. The Committee pursued the matter further, with NILGA subsequently attending in January. NILGA raised significant outstanding issues, which prompted the Committee to request direct departmental engagement with local government in order to resolve them.

The Committee's actions in going beyond routine evidence sessions reflected its determination to ensure that the concerns of those responsible for implementation were explored. The Committee facilitated further engagement with NILGA, including through a second oral evidence session, and requested that the Assembly's Bill Office officials met directly with councils' Building Control representatives to help them better understand the operational implications. The Committee sought proposals from local government on amendments and requested a formal departmental response to each of them. However, having considered the amendments in depth, the Committee accepted the Department's position that most proposals are already covered by existing legislation or will be better dealt with by the statutory guidance.

Notwithstanding that, the Committee recognises that local government remains dissatisfied that not all of its proposals were accepted and that its concerns persist regarding aspects of the Bill. The Committee highlighted the fact that effective implementation would rely on a number of factors, including clear guidance, consistent application and a robust post-implementation review, and we recommended that the Department continue to work with local government to strengthen the statutory guidance.

I take the opportunity to thank all those who submitted written evidence and gave oral evidence to the Committee. I also thank the departmental officials, the Bill Office and the Committee secretariat for their help throughout the Committee Stage, and I highlight the good working relationships between the Committee secretariat and the officials.

I now turn to amendment No 1, which is to clause 2. The Committee considered proposals, including those from NILGA and Building Control Northern Ireland (BCNI), to align the wording of clause 2(2)(c) with the wording of clause 1(1) and to introduce a material degree threshold. At a meeting on 30 April, the Department indicated that it intended to propose an amendment to align the wording of clause 2(2)(c) with that of clause 1(1) by substituting the words "being detrimental to" for "adversely affecting". The Committee was content with that approach and is pleased to support amendment No 1.

Amendment No 2 is to clause 4. The Committee considered evidence from the historic environment division, which is otherwise known as "HED", and Ulster Architectural Heritage that highlighted the need to strengthen the clause to better align it with the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. In particular, it was noted that the 2011 Act provides for the offence of carrying out unauthorised works on a listed building and that listed building consent for alterations or demolitions does not strictly relate solely to condition. The Committee raised those matters with officials at its meeting on 12 February, and, at the Committee's request, officials subsequently engaged further with HED. The Minister then agreed to table an amendment to clause 4(5) to include an explicit reference to statutory heritage controls. The Committee is satisfied that amendment No 2 strengthens the provision and is pleased to support it.

Amendment No 3 is to clause 7(4) and is consequential to amendment No 2. The Committee considered evidence from HED that highlighted the need to include an explicit reference to statutory heritage controls. The Committee is content with that approach and is pleased to support amendment No 3.

I turn to amendment Nos 4 to 18. On 17 September, the Committee was advised of the Minister's intention to amend the title of clause 11 to avoid confusion with the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 as recently amended. That was in light of ongoing work by the Department for Communities on building safety legislation and wider concerns regarding fragmentation in that area. The Committee supported the Department's view that references to "defective premises" should be removed and replaced with more appropriate terminology. The Committee subsequently considered a suite of 16 proposed amendments to clause 11 and is content to support the revised approach under amendment Nos 4 to 18.

Amendment No 19 was tabled after Committee Stage. However, the issue of cost recovery was considered during our deliberations in February. Members explored what constitutes "reasonable costs" and, in particular, whether the costs associated with fencing off sites are recoverable by councils. At that time, officials clarified that "reasonable costs" is a term used in other legislation and that councils should apply a degree of common sense in determining what is reasonable in the circumstances. Officials also confirmed that, under clause 12(4), councils may recover the cost of fencing off sites but only up to the point at which the danger is secured.

I now turn to amendment Nos 20 and 21. The Committee recognised that those amendments are consequential to the change in the title of clause 11, and we support the amendments.

Amendment No 22 is to clause 16. The Committee considered evidence from councils that highlighted concerns that the provision could limit their ability to obtain ownership information and would represent a weakening of existing powers under article 72 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. The Committee raised those concerns with officials, who took legal advice and subsequently advised us, on 31 March, that the Minister had agreed to table an amendment to broaden the scope of the clause and to align the provision more closely with article 72 to enable councils to require information from a person in relation to a property. The Committee is content with that approach and is pleased to support amendment No 22.

I turn to amendment Nos 23 and 24. Those minor amendments were noted by the Committee as introduced by the Minister during Committee Stage with regard to clause 17.

Amendment Nos 25 and 26 are to clause 18. The Committee considered evidence indicating that, under the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, where entry is refused, consent may be sought from a lay magistrate. The Committee queried whether it would be appropriate to reflect a similar provision in the Bill. Officials subsequently confirmed on 19 March that they would be content to propose said amendment. The amendment provides for the seeking of a warrant from a lay magistrate where entry has been confused, which is comparable with section 177 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. The Committee is content with that approach and is pleased to support amendment Nos 25 and 26.

Amendment Nos 27 and 28 relate to clause 19. The Committee considered whether the Bill made adequate provision for stronger penalties in respect of repeat offenders. Officials clarified that the payment of a fixed penalty notice discharges liability for conviction only and does not remove the requirement to carry out the work specified in the notice. The Committee also explored the handling of multiple maintenance notices. On 17 April, officials advised, following receipt of legal advice, that issuing further fixed penalty notices for the same circumstances would not be appropriate, as it could amount to penalising an individual twice for the same offence.

The Committee then sought further clarification on scenarios that involve repeat offenders with multiple properties. Officials advised that the Bill allows for multiple notices, including different types of notice, to be issued in respect of a property. The Committee was subsequently informed that the Department would propose an amendment to provide that payment of a fixed penalty would discharge liability for a conviction only up to the date of payment. That allows for further enforcement action, including court proceedings, in cases of continued non-compliance. The Committee is content with the approach and is pleased to support amendment Nos 27 and 28.

Amendment No 29 relates to clause 21(6). The Committee was content when it was proposed by the Minister during Committee Stage and following further clarification on multiple notices.

The Committee recognised the need for ministerial amendment No 30 to clause 25 to align with the new title of clause 11.

Amendment No 31 was tabled after Committee Stage, so I will turn to amendment No 32. Following deliberations, the Committee concluded that the inclusion of a review and reporting clause was essential to the Bill. Such a provision would enable the Assembly and future AERA Committees to assess the effectiveness of the legislation and ensure that councils contribute to that process through the provision of relevant information. At our meeting on 23 April, Department officials indicated that the Minister would consider drafting a standard clause in that regard. Subsequently, the Committee, at its meeting on 7 May, considered a draft amendment. Following clarification from officials that the proposed regulations would broadly reflect those set out in section 228 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the Committee agreed to support the inclusion of new clause 28A as drafted. Therefore, the Committee is pleased to support amendment No 32.

Amendment Nos 33, 34 and 35 were tabled after Committee Stage completed, so I will turn now to amendment No 36. On schedule 1, the Department advised the Committee of that additional provision, subject to the new provision to fix penalty notices at clause 19, so the Committee is pleased to support amendment No 36.

That ends my comments as the Chair of the Committee.

If you do not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now reflect the thoughts of the Ulster Unionist Party as its spokesperson. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendments to the Dilapidation Bill. At the outset, I acknowledge the considerable work undertaken by the Committee and the engagement that has taken place between the Department, councils, heritage bodies and other stakeholders throughout the scrutiny process. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the principles behind the legislation. Across Northern Ireland, whether it is in our villages, towns or city centres, too many communities are blighted by derelict buildings, dangerous structures and neglected sites. They undermine regeneration, deter investment and create genuine safety concerns. The challenge has never been identifying the problem, however; it has always been providing councils with the practical tools to address it.

Many of the Minister's amendments seek to improve the Bill and respond to concerns raised during scrutiny by the Committee. The Ulster Unionist Party is broadly content with them.

Looking at amendment No 1, the Ulster Unionist Party welcomed the decision to align the wording of clause 2 with that used elsewhere in the Bill, because consistency in drafting matters significantly, particularly where councils would be required to make judgements on whether a building or site falls within the scope of the legislation. However, clear guidance will still be required to ensure that the provisions are applied consistently across all council areas. I returned to that point many times throughout deliberations on the Bill: we really require all councils to respond in the same manner, whether that is in urban settings or, particularly, in rural settings.

The Ulster Unionist Party also welcomes amendment Nos 2 and 3 relating to heritage sites. Northern Ireland has a rich tapestry of heritage buildings and sites. Through the scrutiny process, concerns were raised that efforts to tackle dilapidation should not inadvertently undermine existing heritage protections. The amendments provide greater reassurance in that regard, and they recognise that regeneration and heritage preservation should not be viewed as competing objectives.

Turning to amendment Nos 4 to 18, we support the changes to clause 11. While largely technical in nature, the amendments provide greater clarity and avoid confusion with existing defective premises legislation. Clear and understandable legislation is always preferable, particularly where councils and property owners alike need certainty regarding their responsibilities.

Amendment No 19 is particularly important. Throughout the scrutiny, councils repeatedly highlighted concerns regarding cost recovery. Giving councils powers to intervene is one thing; ensuring that they are not left carrying disproportionate financial burdens is another. The amendment provides useful clarification regarding the recovery of costs associated with fencing and securing dangerous sites. However, we would welcome further assurance from the Minister regarding circumstances where ownership becomes disputed, where sites have effectively been abandoned or where the recovery of costs proves difficult for councils. Councils must have confidence that their use of the powers will not leave ratepayers having to carry the financial burden.

The Ulster Unionist Party supports amendment Nos 20 and 21. Amendment No 21 covers consequential changes arising from amendments to clause 11.

We also welcome amendment No 22. One of the recurring themes raised by councils was the difficulty in identifying ownership and obtaining the information necessary to pursue enforcement action. Strengthening the information-gathering powers is therefore a sensible and practical improvement to the Bill. Nevertheless, identifying responsible persons remains one of the greatest barriers to effective enforcement, and the Minister should continue to work closely with councils to ensure that the powers are effective in practice.

We are content to support amendment Nos 23 and 24.

Regarding amendment Nos 25 and 26, we welcome the introduction of a warrant process where access to land has been refused. That represents an appropriate balance between providing councils with effective enforcement powers and protecting individual property rights and ensuring due process.

Amendment Nos 27, 28 and 29 and the consequential amendment No 36 provide welcome clarity regarding the fixed penalty notice and ongoing liability for non-compliance. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Members have questioned whether the fixed penalty regime will provide a sufficient deterrent, particularly for repeat offenders. While the amendments strengthen the position, their effectiveness will, ultimately, be tested only in practice.

We are content to support amendment No 30, as it is a consequential amendment arising from changes to clause 11.

We welcome amendment No 32 and respect the fact that it may be one of the most important amendments before the House today. If we grant councils significant new powers, it is only right that the Assembly has an opportunity to assess whether those powers are being used effectively; whether they are delivering improvements on the ground; and whether further legislative change would be required. The review mechanism will provide an important opportunity to assess implementation, consistency of enforcement, council capacity and the overall effectiveness of the legislation. Those conversations with councils will be crucial to ensuring the efficacy and deliverability of the proposed legislation.

I wish to comment on the late amendments that were tabled by Mr McCrossan and Mr McGrath: amendment Nos 31, 33, 34 and 35. I will listen to the Member's comments on amendment Nos 31 and 34 and the consequential No 35, because, while I recognise that the establishment and maintenance of a public register will inevitably create an additional administrative burden for the councils, I believe that it is worth listening to the merits of the debate. At times, the Committee was at pains to ensure that the burden would not be put on councils because there was no new money coming with the provisions of the Bill. While there is merit in the amendment, we want to listen to the Member and give him the right to make his case. We also want to listen to the Minister in the winding-up speech on the implications of the amendment.

If the Bill is to achieve its objectives, we need to be able to measure its effectiveness. An accurate and publicly available register would provide not only greater accountability but a valuable evidence base from which councils, the Department and future Assembly Committees could assess progress, identify trends and determine whether further intervention may be required. Likewise, the inclusion of district electoral area (DEA) information could help Members, councils and local communities to better understand how the powers are being used across Northern Ireland. While some initial work may be required to establish such a system, the long-term benefits could provide an accurate baseline and an ongoing public record that may outweigh the other costs.

We are therefore interested in hearing further about a cost-benefit analysis of that.

We are, however, less convinced by amendment No 33. That is not to suggest that the proposal lacks any merit. There is undoubtedly value in understanding the prevalence of dilapidated buildings, dangerous structures and neglected sites across Northern Ireland. Rather, the Ulster Unionist Party's concern is one of principle. The proposal would have benefited significantly from being considered during Committee Stage, as that would have provided an opportunity for us to engage directly with councils, stakeholders and the Department to test its practicality, to explore how such a review would be conducted and, importantly, to quantify the costs and benefits associated with the introduction of such a requirement. Without that scrutiny having been undertaken, Members are being asked to take a view on a potentially significant new obligation in the absence of the level of evidence that normally informs good legislation. For that reason, although we will consider amendment Nos 31, 34 and 35, we are not persuaded by amendment No 33.

In conclusion, the amendments strengthen the Bill, but legislation alone will not solve the problem of dilapidation. The legislation's true test will not be whether it passes but whether councils will have the resources, guidance and confidence necessary to use the powers effectively. Our towns, villages and city centres deserve better than to have buildings that are left to deteriorate year after year. The Bill provides an opportunity to address that challenge. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the majority of the amendments before us, particularly those that the Minister tabled. We encourage him to continue to engage with councils on the Bill's implementation, on assistance with cost recovery, on guidance and on the future review of the legislation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Daniel McCrossan.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and happy birthday. I am not sure whether it makes you the grandfather of the House or whether you are working towards that title, but, nonetheless, happy birthday.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Less of your ageism, Daniel. [Laughter.]

Mr McCrossan: I jest.

The Bill is important, as we all know and as was widely discussed at Committee Stage. As the Chair of the Committee and the Minister reiterated in their contributions, dilapidation has a real impact on communities. It undermines regeneration, damages local pride and creates considerable public safety concerns, about which we, as constituency MLAs, hear all too often. For far too long, communities have been forced to live with derelict buildings and neglected sites, while local authorities have lacked the necessary powers to intervene effectively. I get that that is why the Bill is so essential, in that it provides the tools required to remedy that particular issue. Although we support its broad intent, the Bill alone will not solve the problem of dilapidation. There is a desperate need for the necessary funding and resources to back it up.

One of the strongest themes to emerge during the Committee's scrutiny was the concern about cost recovery and the financial burden that might be placed on local councils. Members have been clear about the genuine concern that the burden will ultimately fall to the ratepayer. We all know that, over recent years, councils have stated firmly on the record that they continue to be under serious financial pressure and that they face increasing expectations and demands on their services with less real-terms funding to meet their responsibilities. We hear daily from ratepayers who are fed up with seeing rising rates but not the investment that they expect to see in our towns, villages and cities.

The Bill gives councils significant new responsibilities. That is to be welcomed, but giving them responsibilities is not sufficient. They also need the necessary funding and resources to ensure effective delivery in order to remedy what is an outstanding and ongoing issue. As I said, questions remain as to whether councils will have the resources to use the powers effectively on the ground and whether all 11 councils will take the same approach consistently. When considering the Bill, we should be careful that we do not create a situation in which the public's expectations are raised but councils are left to carry the financial burden. As is often the case when we speak in the House, it may be that some ratepayers or members of the public will take it as a given that the Bill will be the silver bullet that will resolve the dilapidation issues in towns. Depending on which area you are in, the scale is very different. For example, I represent Omagh, which shares a council area with Fermanagh, and Strabane, which shares a council area with Derry. Whilst both councils have significant issues across the board with dilapidation, dereliction and dangerous buildings etc, the situation in some areas is worse than in others. I would argue, selfishly, for instance, that Strabane town has particular issues where there are buildings of a significant age, and there is just not the means to restore them, particularly in line with the heritage requirements that are in place.

Addressing dilapidation is not simply a matter for local government in isolation. The responsibility lies with the Executive as a whole. The Executive have had their eyes closed to this matter for too long, and many of our buildings have deteriorated significantly across council areas over a long period. It could be argued that, until now, the Executive have failed to get a handle on the matter, and significant deterioration has been the result. In fairness, however, within the cogs of the Bill, the Minister is pointing to a very clear and obvious problem. In my view, he has good intentions to resolve the issues for councils, but we cannot just fire out the legislation and, as I said, expect ratepayers to pick up the slack, particularly with all the other competing financial demands that exist.

If we are serious about tackling dereliction, vacant properties and neglected sites, then DAERA, the Department for Communities and the Department of Finance all have a role to play. We need to remove silo working, look at our local towns, villages and cities collectively as an Executive and work to find solutions that will breathe new life into those places. There is widespread criticism that our town centres are dying. Members have spoken about that on numerous occasions in the House. A number of constituency colleagues who sit on the AERA Committee and know Omagh and Strabane and their surrounding villages — I am speaking parochially because that is where I know best — often say that not enough has been done to deal with the issues at hand. Whilst the Executive and Departments have been quite good at pumping money into regeneration schemes for footpaths, roads and street landscaping, the buildings that sit amongst those wonderful new settings are often eyesores that take away from the significant investment that has been made in those areas.

Enforcement powers are absolutely important, and will serve as a reminder to those concerned that they have a responsibility to carry out works. That applies in particular to those who have been land-banking over a period of time — that happens everywhere, unfortunately — with the hope that the big cash cow will be coming and, ultimately, they will be relieved of their responsibility to maintain, look after and enhance the landscape in a town or village by spending the necessary funds to keep the building up to a good standard. I could list significant numbers of properties in many towns and villages that are owned by a few individuals. Those individuals constantly ask my office whether any grants are available for those buildings whilst, at the same time, buying another building down the street. I get that there is a fundamental issue that needs to be resolved.

We have to remember that there are a wide variety of circumstances that are unique to individuals. For instance, some people might have the great misfortune to inherit a complete wreck of a building, with no means to resolve the problem, and end up in a very difficult situation. That is a concern that I have. There may be those who have an aunt or uncle with no children — I do not — who might leave them an old mill in Strabane, for instance, which could very quickly become a problem under the legislation.

Enforcement powers in themselves cannot become a substitute for the necessary investment that is required. More is needed from the Departments that I have listed to complement the legislation and to interpret what the legislation intends to do. Hopefully, after further conversation with the Minister, that will be something that he and his Executive colleagues will be keen to consider.

A strong case remains for targeted regeneration schemes and funding programmes to bring problematic properties back into productive use. Indeed, that has happened: we have seen it in Belfast, Derry and elsewhere over the years. Realistically, however, the Executive cannot come on a white horse and restore all derelict buildings and properties across Northern Ireland; that is just not practical, nor should it be the case, as people need to live up to their own responsibilities. As I said, some areas are worse than others. A neglected building is often a symptom of wider issues, such as economic decline, underinvestment and failed regeneration. Some towns and cities in Northern Ireland are thriving: those with much better populated urban centres where there is a hive of activity. That encourages private investment, and there is natural enhancement from those investors. However, in areas that lag behind because of economic decline, underinvestment and general deprivation, many towns and cities can quickly become the poor cousin.

The Bill is not perfect; that fact has been well rehearsed and certainly was throughout the AERA Committee's many meetings. However, it is a significant improvement on the current fragmented and outdated framework, which has really not served our communities well. We have to be honest about the Bill's being a starting point. As the Chair of the Committee rightly said, the Committee undertook extensive scrutiny of the Bill and raised a number of legitimate concerns on councils' behalf. We heard those concerns through various evidence sessions. Heritage bodies were also clear, as were other stakeholders such as Building Control, about the Bill's unintended consequences without its having the necessary the teeth to deliver.

It is welcome that the Minister has listened to many of the Committee's concerns. That does not always happen. A number of amendments have been tabled that would strengthen the Bill, but we could go much further. I am sure that, as we continue the process, the Minister will be all ears to hear what else can be done to improve it. As the official Opposition, we will support the Minister's amendments today. We recognise the constructive engagement that has taken place throughout the scrutiny process, not just from the Minister and departmental officials but from all the witnesses who looked at the issue honestly and said, "Yes, there is a problem here". We just need to ensure that we find the right way to fix it.

Concerns have been raised about our amendments and their consequences. Some Members have said that they place an extra burden on councils. We ask Members to consider the amendments; they are designed to strengthen transparency, accountability and public confidence in the operation of the legislation, so that we are clear at all times about the scale of the problem and how we resolve the issues.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Daniel, please resume your seat.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called to speak will be Daniel McCrossan to continue his contribution.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): My Department, along with partner organisations, offers a wide range of supports to help hospitality businesses to become more sustainable. That includes promoting energy efficiency, encouraging innovation, developing skills and helping them to explore new markets. Invest NI provides advice, guidance, innovation grants and access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses. Tourism NI has launched a business resilience programme to support tourism businesses by offering expert financial guidance and a bespoke action plan.

Earlier this year, I met Hospitality Ulster and the NI Food To Go Association about a VAT reduction pilot scheme to address differences between the North and the South. Following that meeting, the Minister of Finance and I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, seeking a meeting on the issue. Members may also be aware that I have recently published research into the night-time economy, which was undertaken in partnership with Tourism NI and the Belfast business improvement district. That has already led to funding for a late-night transport pilot in Belfast, supporting a safe and vibrant night-time economy.

My Department will continue to monitor business sentiment and engaging with stakeholders to support a sustainable and thriving hospitality sector, in line with our four economic priorities.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. My office is on the Ormeau Road, which I walked up last week just after the disturbances and riots. The only businesses that were shut were the businesses, restaurants and cafes that are run by ethnic minority communities. Obviously, they lost out on income, which they can ill afford. The staff also lost out on tips, wages and stuff. It was really disappointing that they did not feel that it was safe enough to open. There was obviously an information vacuum, because other restaurants and cafes etc were open; other businesses felt safe enough. What plans can you put in place so that, if there is any such eventuality in the future, there is better communication with those business owners so that they do not lose out on the income that their businesses deserve?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for the question. It is important that I put on record my unequivocal condemnation of the recent disorder. It has caused significant damage and disruption not just to public services but to our local economy. Many businesses have been affected. Obviously, that comes at a time, as you said, when they can ill afford it; our businesses are already under considerable pressure due to the rising costs of doing business and the increased cost of living, which impacts on their customers. As you outlined, many of those business owners are from minority ethnic backgrounds, but so too are their staff. It is important that people feel safe while going to their place of work and feel that they can open their businesses safely.

I had the opportunity last week to meet Steve Lazars from the Ethnic Minority Employment and Entrepreneurship Network and hear directly about the experiences of some of our minority ethnic businesses. I will follow that up next week to get a greater insight. It is important to understand the direct experience, as well as trying to respond to it, which, obviously, we will seek to do. It is important that we look at the experiences of the past week, and at the response in general. I raised some issues about messaging with the Chief Constable when he attended the Executive last week. It is important that we reflect on all of that.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for her leadership on this issue, especially given that leadership has been lacking from so many others in our society.

Minister, you mentioned research that has been undertaken into the night-time economy. Will you elaborate on that and on what that means when it comes to supporting our businesses?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. The Department published what is first-of-its-kind research into our night-time economy in collaboration with Tourism NI and the three business improvement districts of Belfast, which are Belfast One, Destination Cathedral Quarter and the Linen Quarter. The research was conducted by Ipsos and Nordicity and has already been instrumental in securing that funding for the late-night transport pilot scheme in Belfast. The research shows that our night-time economy contributed between £2·8 billion and £3·7 billion in gross value added in 2024 and supports over 100,000 full-time equivalent jobs. The research will further the development of a safe, thriving and diverse night-time economy that works for the hospitality and tourism sectors and for our communities. To support that ambition, the Department has already taken a number of steps, including working with Tourism NI to explore tourism's potential in the night-time economy.

Mr Harvey: Minister, do you agree that those operating in the sector outside the greater Belfast area face significantly greater challenges and require enhanced support to ensure their sustainability?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, and I think that there is merit in what he is saying. Obviously, if you are in a city centre with all its attractions, you have the ability to attract more people to boost your night-time economy. The research that I referred to looked at Derry and Enniskillen, and that also gives important insights. The work that our councils are doing through the local economic partnerships gives us an opportunity to look at how the night-time economy can contribute and be supported across our different council areas. Obviously, the contexts that they work in will differ, and it is important to reflect that in the plans that are being introduced so that they are responsive to the needs of the local areas. I certainly encourage pursuing conversations about that with local councils. Your council area and my council area have significant tourism attractions, and opportunities for the night-time economy are directly linked to that. Again, there are opportunities to work with Tourism NI on how we can better support our night-time economy across the board.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, as we move towards July and the further lowering of the VAT rate for food and hospitality in the Republic of Ireland, the hospitality sector is looking at changing its operating models to address what it sees as a situation that is almost perilous to the operation of its businesses. How will you monitor the impact that that will have on businesses in the short, medium and long term, and what steps can the Department take to assist those businesses?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. It is certainly of significant concern to me, and I know that it is of significant concern to many of our tourism and hospitality businesses and those who represent them. I mentioned that we previously met Hospitality Ulster and the Food to Go Association. We have, obviously, corresponded with Treasury on the matter. We are yet to have a response from Treasury, which is outrageous, given the impact that we are seeing on our local businesses and the further impact that we will see in the near future as the differential widens further. The Finance Minister and I will follow up on that correspondence, and we will continue to engage with the sector. It is important that we monitor the situation as that differential widens further, and I will ask the Department to look at how we can do that in a quantitative way as well as in the qualitative way that we hear from the sector directly.

Dr Archibald: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 2, 3 and 8.

Appointments to the board of Invest NI are made in accordance with the code of practice issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments (CPANI). The code provides a clear and robust framework for managing conflicts of interest at all stages of the appointments process. Applicants are required to declare any relevant interests, which are fully assessed by the selection panel as part of its evaluation of suitability. In addition, appointees are required to declare and manage interests on an ongoing basis once appointed. The selection panel is also required to declare any potential conflicts. They must be managed by the panel chair to ensure the integrity of the process.

My role is also clearly defined in the code. I make appointments from only those candidates deemed suitable by the selection panel, based on the evidence provided and assessed against the selection criteria agreed at the outset of the process. Those criteria were determined by me and informed by consultation with the chair of the Invest NI board and the chair of the selection panel.

The process, therefore, ensures that conflicts are identified, considered and managed appropriately before any appointment decision is made. The Nolan principles are reflected throughout the process. Appointments are made through fair and open competition, with independent assessment, appropriate declarations of interest and proper record-keeping to support accountability, openness and public confidence.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Minister. One of your party colleagues whom you appointed to the board of Invest Northern Ireland, Mr Peter Lynch, was convicted of terrorist activity in 1993 for conspiracy to commit murder. Is there any crime that someone could carry out that, in your view, would disbar them from being appointed to public office? Or, is the sole qualification for appointment by you that they be a party colleague?

Dr Archibald: I completely reject the final part of the Member's question. Clearly, that is absolutely not the case. As I have outlined in detail, the appointments were made in line with the code of practice that was issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The process was followed robustly. At all stages, the proper process was followed and records were taken to ensure its transparency and accountability.

Miss McIlveen: The Nolan principles exist to ensure that those who govern act solely in the public interest. The principles include avoiding obligations to outside individuals or organisations that might influence official duties; making decisions based on merit; being accountable to the public for actions and decisions; declaring private interests; and resolving conflict to protect the public interest. How can the public be assured of compliance with those principles when the Minister appoints a former IRA prisoner and a former Sinn Féin Minister to the same board?

Dr Archibald: As I have set out clearly, the process that was followed was fully in line with the CPANI guidance and code of practice. As the Member will be aware, given that she was a Minister, the Nolan principles guide everything that we do as Ministers. They were fully upheld within this process.

The people who were appointed will add value to the Invest NI board. Obviously, each one of them came through the process and was deemed appointable by the panel that selected them and put them forward to me for appointment. We have a good, strong board, and, as I said, the people who were appointed to it will add value.

Mr Brooks: The Minister said that the candidates were presented to her for selection. Were the candidates presented to her in rank order? If so, which specific skills, expertise and experience did Peter Lynch display that made him particularly appointable?

Dr Archibald: As I have set out very clearly, the selection process was followed. The skill set that was asked for was set out as part of the application process, and all the candidates who passed the selection process had the skill set that deemed them to be appointable. They all fulfilled that criteria.

Mr Kearney: Minister, do you agree that the discrimination in employment and the political vetting that have been practised in this state for so long, and actively supported by some Members, have no place in today's society, and that appointment to government boards should be open to all sections of society, including such citizens as Peter Lynch?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. There is no place in modern society for discrimination of any kind. It is important that all our public boards are reflective of society and that the appointment process is open, inclusive and accessible to all sections of society.

That was clearly the case with the appointment process, where the guidance and code of practice were followed. Ensuring that appointment processes are open and transparent strengthens governance, enhances our decision-making and supports the delivery of high-quality public services. That is what people expect of us.

Regardless of people's political background or experiences, processes have to be followed, and that is clearly what happened in that case. As I have said to other Members, the five people who were appointed add significant value to the board. They have diverse experience across different sections of our economy, and that is exactly what we need on all public boards.

I take appointments to our public boards incredibly seriously. Board members do an important job. My Department's arm's-length bodies (ALBs) spend a significant part of my budget, so boards must hold those ALBs to account. It is therefore important that the people appointed to them have the necessary skills and experience, and appointing on the basis of merit ensures that that is the case.

Dr Aiken: The Minister will be aware that, under the public appointments guide published by the Executive Office, it is clear that she is supposed to take independent advice before appointing board members. What independent advice did she receive, particularly about the board members selected?

Dr Archibald: There is an application process and an interview process. At that point, the names of candidates who, according to the selection panel, have passed the interview process are presented to me by my officials for appointment. Nineteen candidates passed the interview process and were put forward for appointment. As I have said clearly to other Members, all five were deemed to be appointable on the basis that they added value to the Invest NI board and would bring different experience to it. The 14 others remain on a list for potential appointment for up to a year. The process was followed robustly, and I stand over it fully.

Mr Gaston: Given that the IRA bombed the heart out of Belfast and my home town of Ballymena, which resulted in the murder of Yvonne Dunlop, will you outline, Minister, exactly the skill set that former IRA man Peter Lynch brings to economic development that justifies him sitting on the board of Invest NI, apart from being one of the boyos?

Dr Archibald: I will take no lectures from any Member whose party continues to share platforms with those who speak on behalf of active paramilitaries. As I have said, the application process set out clearly the skill set required, and the people deemed appointable to the board of Invest NI passed that process; otherwise, their names would not have been presented to me for appointment. As I said, that shows that the process was followed robustly, and I believe that the people who have been appointed add value to the board.

Mr Speaker: John Stewart is not in his place.

Dr Archibald: I am profoundly disappointed that I have been prevented from bringing the Bill to the Assembly at this time and that MLAs have not yet had the fullest opportunity to consider it in detail. It is my view that workers and their families are being let down by the delay. The Bill has been designed to support good jobs and fair workplaces, while recognising the needs of business, and I intend to continue to seek its introduction in the Assembly as soon as possible. I have listened to businesses, and the Bill has been drafted to be a carefully balanced package. In spite of the delay, I am firmly of the view that there is still time in the mandate to progress the Bill and deliver progressive reforms for our economy. I encourage my Executive and Assembly colleagues to support that aim.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister. It appears that some do not like working-class people or, indeed, trade unions. Trade unions play an integral role in the social and economic fabric here and have done so for well over 100 years on our streets. Do you agree that, in 2026, they still play a vital role in informing workers of their rights and, importantly, helping them to exercise those rights?

Dr Archibald: I completely agree that trade unions play a positive role in helping workers understand and exercise their rights. Where trade unions are present, they provide workers with access to information, advice and representation, which can make it easier to raise concerns and to seek improvements in the workplace. Trade unions also perform a recognised role in negotiating pay and conditions on behalf of their members and in providing a structured channel for dialogue between employers and employees.

Evidence shows that effective worker voice and representation, including through trade unions, is associated with higher job quality, stronger workplace relationships and, in some contexts, improved organisational performance. Extending access to independent representation is particularly important in the parts of our economy where worker voice is currently limited, as it will help ensure that workers are aware of their rights and able to exercise them in practice.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, your party has shamefully used vulnerable people for its own party political aims around the employment rights Bill. You and your colleagues wrongly stated that the DUP blocked provision for neonatal parental leave, despite your having taken two years to bring the legislation to the Executive table. Will you apologise to neonatal parents like me for disgracefully using children and carers for party campaigning on the issue? Take my party leader and my deputy First Minister up on their offer to split the Bill and let the aims for parental leave —

Mr Speaker: Can we have the question now?

Mrs Erskine: — progress in this mandate.

Dr Archibald: I completely reject the Member's assertions. We have developed a Bill that is balanced in its aims and objectives. It will provide workers with additional rights and the ability to exercise them. [Interruption.]

Your party is blocking the Bill in the Executive. It has not allowed it on the Executive agenda for decision; therefore, it is blocking it. [Interruption.]

The Bill as a whole is drafted and sitting ready to go. Where it should be debated and scrutinised is in the Chamber. Every MLA should have the opportunity to take a view on the Bill and allow it to progress to Committee Stage for scrutiny. If Members want to table amendments to the Bill, they are absolutely free to do so. That is the democratic process that should be followed.

Ms Nicholl: I know that the Minister agrees that it is in the Chamber that we will create a Bill that will work for the trade unions, business and everyone; it is in the Chamber that we should make the right legislation. What is the last date on which the Bill can be introduced for us to scrutinise it to the required level before the end of the mandate?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I have repeatedly stated my preference for the Bill to be with the Committee for the summer recess to allow the longest possible time for scrutiny. Members have talked about how the Bill needs scrutiny and said that people need to have their say on it. I fully support that, which is why I would have liked there to be the longest possible time for it.

As I have also said, there is plenty of time for the Bill to be scrutinised. The Committee Stage of the equivalent Westminster legislation took seven weeks. That gives us guidance on the time frame that we are talking about to allow for scrutiny. The Committee can take the time that it wants. I want the Bill to be in Committee at the earliest opportunity, so I would like to see the proposal passed by the Executive. I see absolutely no reason why it cannot be passed at the next Executive meeting or over the summer months so that the Bill can be introduced at the earliest opportunity in September.

I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Executive. I have had constructive conversations with all my ministerial colleagues, the vast majority of whom are on record as supporting it. I want to ensure that that work continues so that all Members will see the content of the Bill and that everybody who wants to give a view on it has the ability to do so, which means seeing it as it has been drafted.

Dr Archibald: I have ongoing engagement with the Minister for Infrastructure on issues relating to the north-west.

I am aware that DFI is considering the strategic vision of the all-island strategic rail review and that its focus is currently on prioritisation and appraisal, with no decisions yet having been taken on the progression of specific projects, including those affecting the north-west.

My Department will, of course, provide support to DFI as necessary to ensure that the economy in the north-west is underpinned by strong transport links.

My Department's aviation policy consultation, which recently closed, set out a number of proposals to support our airports and air connectivity. The responses are being considered. My Department will, of course, continue to work closely with DFI, including on any proposals for airport expansion that are brought forward, given the importance of air connectivity to our local economy.

Mrs Middleton: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Tourism NI-funded events in the north-west are projected to pull in £21 million for the local economy in 2026-27. Minister, how are you working with the airport and other key stakeholders to ensure that we have the capacity to accommodate the massive tourist influx for some of our most significant events?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. I have ongoing engagement with Tourism NI and Derry City and Strabane District Council. I am delighted that we are able to support those events in the north-west, given the significant value that they will add to the local economy. I am particularly excited about the 40th anniversary of Derry Halloween in October. The success of that event, which people from all over the world come to enjoy, shows how well we can do tourism locally and how we can support local events. We will continue to work in partnership with Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland and alongside the council to support anything that is necessary to deliver on forthcoming events this year in order to ensure that they are a success and that we can build on them for the future.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you to the Minister for her commitment to the north-west in particular in addressing regional balance. Minister, how are you supporting the viability of City of Derry Airport?

Dr Archibald: As the Member will be aware, I previously announced that my Department had assumed responsibility for providing operating funding of up to £3 million per annum for City of Derry Airport until 31 March 2029. That demonstrated my commitment to the long-term future of the airport and to protecting an important element of the north-west's economic infrastructure. The support provides greater certainty for the airport, as it continues to maintain connectivity and support trade, tourism and, of course, inward investment across the north-west. It will also help facilitate the proposed Derry to Dublin public service obligation (PSO) by underpinning the airport's operational sustainability and strengthening its ability to support additional socially and economically important services, including that commuter route from the north-west to Dublin.

Mr Honeyford: Minister, if we are serious about growing aviation and regional connectivity, we need the widest possible pool of talent, including pilots and engineers. Your Department has identified the problem that exists, but what concrete action is it taking with the Irish Government to improve mutual recognition of qualifications and skills across the island?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware of the Irelandia report on aviation on the island. I have discussed that with colleagues in the South. I have had ongoing engagements with my counterpart James Lawless, Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, on how we can better join up skills programmes and qualification recognition across the island. On Friday past, I had a meeting about the potential for an all-island apprenticeship. We have seen the accounting technician apprenticeship, which was a really good first step. There are significant opportunities to do things jointly for our mutual benefit where there are skill sets that we need to develop across the island. The Member will also be aware of the work on offshore energy, which, again, has significant potential. To support the development of all those things, we have to make sure that we have skilled people coming through. I will continue to work with my colleagues across the island to make that happen.

Dr Archibald: In establishing the £45 million regional balance fund, I have empowered councils, working with businesses and community partners in local economic partnerships (LEPs) to identify their own priorities and bring forward locally led projects to increase productivity. Decisions on what to deliver and where to deliver it are taken by the Belfast local economic partnership. I am pleased to report that the Belfast LEP has agreed an action plan for 2026-28. The plan includes flexibility to target support by location through, for example, enhanced business support that can be directed to specific parts of the city. Importantly, the plan is not yet fully allocated, with around £938,000 still to be committed, giving the partnership further scope to bring forward additional targeted interventions as priorities are refined. Taken together, that local decision-making, the built-in flexibility and the remaining funding will give the Belfast LEP lots of opportunities to target actions to the groups that it deems to be most appropriate.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topicals.

Ms McLaughlin: Last Monday, my Regional Balance Bill hit the floor of the Assembly for its First Stage. I was delighted, as it had been a long time coming. I have long argued that, if regional balance is good policy, it should be good legislation as well.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question and congratulate her on the introduction of her Bill. I have not yet got the full read-out on the Bill and all its proposals; officials are working through that. The Member knows my views on the Bill and that I am open to legislation, if it is necessary and the proposals are appropriate and workable. I will absolutely consider all of that.

I completely agree about regional balance — the Member knows that. It is one of my priorities under the economic vision and is reflected in the Programme for Government. Every Department has a responsibility to make sure that regional balance happens and that we drive prosperity and opportunity across the North.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for that answer, Minister: it sounded positive.

Despite regional balance being a stated Executive priority, no legislation has been introduced by your Department or the Executive, and the gaps between the regions are getting bigger. My Bill would strengthen the Executive's response and put regional balance on a statutory footing.

I want to work with you on this, Minister. It is really important that the Department for the Economy works effectively on the Bill. Will you agree to meet me, as soon as you get feedback from your officials, so that we can move forward collectively? I will work with my colleagues on the Economy Committee in the coming weeks.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her follow-up question. While there has been no legislation on regional balance from the Department for the Economy, it goes through everything that we do in the Department, as well as, now, all its arm's-length bodies. Invest NI has reflected it in its business plan. Of course, I will be happy to meet the Member to discuss the principles and proposals set out in her Bill, as I said before you got to the point of introducing it, and it is important that we work together to further our shared aims.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am pleased to say that we are making sustained and measurable progress in delivering against the energy strategy. There is a clear focus on removing barriers, enabling investment to come in and accelerating the transition to cleaner, more secure energy. My Department has been driving forward a programme of delivery across electricity, heat and energy efficiency. One example of that is our fairer grid connections policy, which delivers fundamental reform of how electricity connection charging operates. By removing the unfair upfront reinforcement costs, we make it easier and more affordable for homes and businesses to connect to the grid, particularly in rural areas and parts of the network where capacity is more limited. Those new arrangements are due to come into effect on 1 July.

Alongside that, we are determined to see progress on other measures, including those relating to low-carbon heat. We have a plan to redeploy any residual renewable heat incentive (RHI) annually managed expenditure (AME) funding following the closure of the scheme to support a biomethane support scheme. That has now been agreed in principle with the Treasury, subject, obviously, to the detailed development and approval of a business case.

I want to see the development of a biomethane sector that works towards delivering decarbonisation but is also environmentally sustainable and, crucially, works for local energy consumers. We have strong indigenous biomethane potential and opportunities to support decarbonisation, energy security and our rural economy. We are working closely with DAERA on the development of a coordinated biomethane policy framework that will go out for consultation later in the year. Together, all those actions, alongside others, will then be —.

Mr Speaker: Minister, Ms Hargey will have a second bite at asking a question.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister. The grid connection policy is welcome because it will put money back into people's pockets. Can you provide a further update on the renewable targets and particularly on the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme (REPG), which will help to achieve those targets?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. On 26 March, the Executive agreed the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme policy intent and that work would progress on the primary Bill required to implement the scheme. Officials have now concluded the work with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC). The draft primary Bill is complete, and the newly titled renewable electricity generation Bill was sent to the Executive for consideration at the last Executive meeting. Subject to Executive approval, the Bill will be introduced to the Assembly, and, once the primary Bill is in place, we will bring forward the subordinate regulations to set out the operational arrangements.

Members will have heard me say at different times that our statutory targets are ambitious and that we need to have the schemes in place to help us to meet those targets. The REPG scheme in particular is key to the delivery of 80% renewable electricity by 2030 and, of course, our net zero target.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The NISRA tourism statistics for 2025 have only recently been published. They show that tourism is flourishing in the north-west, with overnight stays increasing in Derry City and Strabane District Council and Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council areas. The latest figures indicated that the two areas together welcomed more than one and a half million overnight trips during 2025, generating total visitor spend of £278 million.

It is particularly encouraging to see the growth in Derry City and Strabane, where all the key metrics increased compared with 2024. Overnight trips increased by 35%, the number of overnight visitors increased by 28%, and visitor expenditure increased by 13·5%. The figures are hugely encouraging and reflect the growing appeal of the city and district and the work that is going on there to develop the tourism offering.

As I mentioned in previous answers, we announced funding for a number of events across the north-west, including the 40th anniversary of Derry's Halloween festival.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for the update. It is really positive news, and it is due to the ongoing investment by the Department and the fantastic tourism industry that we have in the city. Does the Minister agree that the images of racial violence that were portrayed throughout the world do not represent who we are and that we are, in fact, a welcoming place for tourists?

Dr Archibald: I completely agree with the Member. I mentioned to Paula Bradshaw earlier that what we saw on our streets last week was absolutely disgraceful and has to be unequivocally condemned by everybody. It caused significant damage and disruption to public services, businesses and our local economy, and it came at a time when businesses were already under pressure.

My Department has reached out to business representatives to better understand how they have been impacted. The sector is keen to get back to business as usual as quickly as possible and to demonstrate that we remain open for business. We are a welcoming people, and we have a lot to offer, and that is what we want to present to the world. We will continue to support businesses owned by people from minority ethnic backgrounds and the workforce, who are hugely important to our local economy and society.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Her question reflects the difficult position that we are in because the Executive have not yet been able to agree a Budget. I note the Fiscal Council's annual review that was published today, which supports the Executive's case that we are not funded in the same way as Scotland and Wales, and I hope that the Treasury takes that on board. We need to see a sustainable Budget that will allow us to invest in our public services; one that will allow me, as the Economy Minister, to invest in our universities in order to develop our local economy.

The first piece of work in the higher education funding review was the financial needs assessment, and that has been completed and published. We are developing the terms of reference for the next phase of the work. That is ongoing. We anticipate that the review will take about 18 months to complete. It is important to undertake the work to get a proper insight into the needs of our higher education sector. However, to invest in the sector in the way that we need to, we need a Budget that the Executive can work with, and, as Economy Minister, I need my fair share of it.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. The review does not seem to command the support that is required to deliver meaningful change and transformation. What engagement have you had with the universities in recent weeks to design a review process that will have support and buy-in from those who will be most affected by its outcomes?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I mentioned, the first stage of the review was the financial needs assessment, which was undertaken by Higher Futures. It was an independent analysis, and we will continue to work with independent experts as we take the review forward.

It is important that we get buy-in from our higher education institutions, and I will continue to work with them. However, we also need to make sure that the review goes forward. It is important that we try to get a consensus, but it is also important to move the process on. As you would expect, I have had considerable engagement with all our higher education institutions, and I will continue to work with them to get the process moving.

Mr Speaker: Mr Burrows is not in his place.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The Member will be aware of the significant and positive work that is being undertaken through the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal that will support the already fantastic capabilities at Ulster University's Coleraine campus. The Member will also, I hope, be aware of the 12% increase in student numbers at the Coleraine campus since the Executive returned, alongside the increase that we have seen at the Magee campus.

Of course, the investment in the Magee campus is an Executive-agreed priority and a Programme for Government commitment, and that is why the investment has been focused in that way. It is important that we ensure the development of the economy in the north-west and deliver on the potential of the area. Clearly, from a constituency perspective, I also want to see a strong and thriving campus in Coleraine. I believe that we can see three campuses of Ulster University thriving, and that is why the work that I spoke about in response to Connie Egan's question is so important. We need a Budget that allows us to invest effectively in our universities, given their significant potential and the world-class research and innovation that is being undertaken at them.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer, but she will appreciate my concern that anybody in the House, when talking about the north-west, means Londonderry and Strabane. The north and the north-east, which run from Greysteel to Cushendun and Cushendall and cover the hinterlands of Kilrea and Garvagh, are often forgotten about and overlooked in the Chamber, hence my question.

Dr Archibald: I can assure the Member that they are certainly not overlooked or forgotten by me, as someone who represents those areas. I do not accept the Member's assertion that the north-west means Derry and Strabane. It is much wider than Derry and Strabane. We should be looking at the significant potential of the whole economy of the north-west, because we have really significant institutions there that are doing really good work through our universities and colleges. There is cutting-edge, world-class research and innovation being undertaken, and it is important that we continue to support that. We are doing so through our growth deals in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council and the Derry City and Strabane District Council areas, and that is why, as I said, we need to see a sustainable Budget for the Executive. We need a sustainable Budget so that we can continue to support the investment that is required in order to deliver on our potential.

Mr Speaker: That brings to an end questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Mr Speaker: I call Daniel McCrossan to resume his speech.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not have much more to say. A lot of the issues have been addressed so far.

The SDLP is asking for the House's support for our amendments. They are designed to strengthen transparency, accountability and public confidence in the operation of the legislation, and we believe that they would make the Bill more effective. Transparency is particularly important, because there will rightly be an expectation, as I said earlier, that action will follow once the powers become available. We need to manage the public's expectation of what the legislation will do. Communities should be able to see what action is being taken to address dilapidation in their areas, and that is the reason for some of our amendments. They seek to establish a clear baseline for measuring success, to improve public access to information about how and where the powers are being used and to ensure that those powers are used proportionately across council areas.

If notices are being issued, interventions are taking place and public money is being spent, there should be a clear and accessible public record of that activity in order to ensure openness and transparency and good use of resources.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will, yes.

Mr McGlone: The Member has touched on the issue of public moneys. Dies he accept that a number of concerns have been raised about from where public moneys will come and, indeed, about the legal costs that may be incurred as a consequence?

Mr McCrossan: Yes. That was well rehearsed at the Committee. All members had similar concerns about how we can ensure that the Bill, which is well intentioned, has some teeth and can therefore deliver for people on the ground without burdening the ratepayer any further, because there is already a very heavy rate burden across council areas. As I said earlier, that issue is raised with me continually. Councils do not have an endless pot of money at their disposal. In fact, they argue very strongly that they are less funded today than they were in previous years but that their money is expected to go much, much further. I have picked up a concern from councillors, including those from my party, that this is an attempt by the Executive simply to pass the buck to local councils, as opposed to the Executive's taking a more joined-up approach, which, as I indicated earlier, would be much more satisfactory and involve the Department of Finance, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for Communities.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: Yes, I will give way to the Minister.

Mr Muir: I recognise that the Member is relaying what he has been told, but the reality is much different. The issue was previously consulted on, and councils, for example, welcomed the move to allow maintenance notices to be served. I set that out in my opening remarks. It is a discretionary power for councils to use. Does the Member recognise that bringing dilapidated buildings back into use would also benefit councils' rates base?

Mr McCrossan: Absolutely. I thank the Minister for that intervention and clarification. It is healthy and important to thrash out some of those issues, certainly, when it comes to the local authority. As someone who represents Strabane, Omagh and the surrounding towns and villages, I see how dereliction is a blight on the entire area. It absolutely needs to be resolved, and quickly.

We probably need to be a wee bit more imaginative about the Government's role in that and how we repurpose some of those structures in town centres, for instance. Could they be brought back into better use than their previous function? If they were formerly retail premises, for instance, they may not ever satisfy housing requirements in town centres, but that is where the Department for Communities could play a role because those buildings could help alleviate the housing pressures that it faces. If the Executive were a bit more creative and imaginative about how the Bill could play out, working alongside councils and the various Departments that are listed — your own Department, Minister, the Department of Finance, the Department for the Economy and, of course, the Department for Communities — the Bill has the potential to do good things. However, leaving it simply at the door of councils, in itself, raises questions and concerns, which I know that we will thrash out as we go forward in the process.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. He highlights very important points. The Bill is important. We all support dealing with dilapidation and agree that we must do it. The Minister highlighted in his intervention that a consultation had taken place. However, that consultation was 10 years ago. Does the Member agree that it was too long ago and that it was important to have had more communication with the sector before introducing the Bill?

Mr McCrossan: Yes. That is a legitimate concern. Certainly, things change quite quickly. The dereliction of our towns and villages is much worse today than it was 10 years ago. A number of factors that are well beyond the control of any Minister have led to that. It would be helpful if a more up-to-date consultation were carried out to provide us with the most open view as to where things currently sit.

Good policy —

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will, Minister, yes.

Mr Muir: Does the Member accept that, whilst that consultation was undertaken in 2016, the Committee, during its deliberations, had a call for evidence and was able to engage with people on that? We need to strike a balance because, often, I hear from Members about the number of consultations that we undertake, rather than about our actual delivery. It is about trying to strike a balance, engage with people, get evidence and also deliver action on the ground, and we must do that in cooperation with local government, which is what we sought to do.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for that. He is right to challenge me on that because I am often the person who is criticising him for all those consultations. When it comes to how we can be more imaginative and do something that will actually be beneficial and show a direct outcome and result, the Bill could be a strong starting point, particularly, as I have said, when you tie in all those other Departments and the Executive working collectively.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way again. He makes a very valid point. In many of those town centres, some aspects, small buildings here and there and some not-so-small buildings have fallen into dereliction. I get where the Minister is coming from about bringing those back into use for ratepayers. However, many of our town centres, particularly the retail areas, have changed quite a bit, especially since lockdown. Will the Minister tell us what consultation there was with the likes of the Department for Communities around schemes such as the ones that existed in the past — for example, Living over the Shop (LOTS) — whereby, with a bit of seed funding, the centre of those towns could be changed very significantly and could, in fact, help to address many of the waiting lists that those of us who are in our constituencies see growing steadily?

Mr McCrossan: I thank my colleague for that very helpful intervention. Other Members and I have raised that issue of living above the shop, if you like, in the past. Here is an example of dereliction. In the street on which my office is situated in Strabane, all the buildings, with the exception of mine and the solicitor's office across the road, are derelict. They could be repurposed very quickly for housing. It would actually force footfall into our town centres. We are all guilty of jumping in the car and, for convenience, nearly parking on the shoes of the person at the till to get into a shop. I say that as a rural person because we are forced to do it that way. The Bill could play a key part in the repurposing of town centres. However, it has to be done in conjunction with the other Departments. We need to be creative in how we can put the Bill to task.

Certainly, as I have said, it is good policy. I have no question that the Bill is well intended. We all want to see those issues tackled, but I fear, particularly given the Minister's clarification that those will be discretionary powers, just how this will be rolled out. Will it be rolled out more strongly in some council areas than in others? Will ratepayers be hit harder in some places than in others? Are some councils further behind than other councils because they have been starved of investment for generations and there is a lot of catching up to do? Will there be a huge amount of work to be done by the council to enforce the powers that they will now be given? There is a wide net here that needs to be looked at and looked at proportionately.

As I have said, I have no doubt that the Bill can play a role in addressing dilapidation, but its success will depend on councils having support. That has been well said, and I will continue to advocate on behalf of the councils, as I am sure that others will. Councils will need resources and partnership with the wider Executive, particularly the various Departments that I have mentioned.

We are keen to support the amendments tabled by the Minister, because it is clear that he has been listening to the concerns raised by the Committee and the robust process that we followed. I appreciate that. I believe that the Minister ears are open on the issue. I encourage him and his officials to explore further how he can strengthen his Department's role in order to ensure that councils are not left at a cliff edge, where they have a mass of enforcement to do, depending on the state of the buildings — we do not know, because there is no register — and how he can play a stronger role along with his Executive colleagues.

It is a priority issue. Dereliction covers more than our town centres; I see it in housing estates etc as well, but we have a more concentrated element of it in our town centres. That must be dealt with. As for previous research, Ulster University carried out a survey some years ago, Minister, that was in line with what we ask for in the amendment. I had it here earlier, but I have misplaced it. It is important that we have some record of and can closely monitor the level of dereliction and dilapidation that exists so that we know the scale of the problem that we face.

I am happy to engage and to continue engaging on the issue. The Bill could be positive, but, at the minute, it falls short and more needs to be done. I am happy to support the Minister's amendments, and I ask other Members of the House to consider the SDLP's amendments.

Ms Finnegan: At the outset, I want to be clear: no one in the Chamber disputes the impact that dangerous, neglected and dilapidated buildings have on our community. Every Member in the Chamber has dealt with residents who are frustrated by buildings that have been allowed to deteriorate and that attract antisocial behaviour; damage the appearance of our towns and villages; and, in some cases, present genuine risk to the public's safety. We have heard stories about that from Members around the House. Our communities have waited for far too long for meaningful action in this area. The objective behind the Bill is, therefore, one that Sinn Féin absolutely supports.

One of the greatest frustrations in the debate is that there was a genuine opportunity to introduce legislation that would finally provide councils with the tools that they have sought for many years in order to tackle dangerous and neglected buildings. The Minister had the benefit of a consultation process — it began in 2016, a decade ago, as has already been mentioned — of extensive, albeit late, engagement with the local government sector and the expertise of those who will, ultimately, have the responsibility to implement the powers. At Committee Stage, Sinn Féin supported the progression of the Bill, because we recognise that the current legislative framework is outdated and councils need stronger powers to address dangerous, neglected and dilapidated properties. However, our support at that stage was not the end of the conversation.

As the Bill progressed and detailed engagement took place with the local government sector, significant concerns emerged around legal uncertainty, financial liability, operational capacity and practical implementation. It is important to recognise that the local government sector did not enter the process seeking to oppose the Bill. It engaged constructively with the Department and sought to improve the legislation through amendments. Its objective was to take a Bill with significant shortcomings and make it workable enough to deliver the policy intention. However, despite that engagement, many of the fundamental concerns remain unresolved. I acknowledge that the Minister has tabled a number of amendments in response to concerns that were raised during our scrutiny. We will support those amendments where they improve the workable provisions of the Bill. However, where amendments relate to areas in which significant concerns remain around legal certainty, financial exposure, operational capacity and the absence of dedicated funding, we are not satisfied that the underlying issues have been addressed, and we will abstain on those.

Having considered the Bill in its entirety, Sinn Féin has sought to take a balanced and evidence-based approach. We will support the provisions that provide councils with stronger, workable powers to tackle dangerous and neglected properties. There are particular amendments that relate to the most significant intervention powers that are available to councils, including requiring substantial remedial works and, in certain circumstances, demolition. While we support the objective of providing councils with stronger powers to address severely neglected and derelict buildings, those are complex decisions that involve private property rights, significant enforcement action and the potential for lengthy legal challenges.

The local government sector raised concerns about councils' not having the level of legal certainty, protection and operational support that is required to exercise these powers with confidence. For that reason, while we support the objective behind the powers, we are not convinced that the amendments before us today provide the necessary safeguards, legal certainty and practical framework that are required for councils to exercise them with confidence.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Ms Finnegan: I will, yes.

Mr Muir: Does the Member understand my disappointment at hearing her contribution on this? It is an Executive Bill, to which I got Executive agreement to progress. The first time that those concerns have been outlined to me, as a partner in government with her party, has been in the Chamber today. I would have liked to have been able to engage with her and try to resolve some of those issues. I note the fact that the Committee agreed a report that expressed its satisfaction around that. For this to have occurred today concerns me when it comes to the future of these institutions.

Ms Finnegan: I appreciate your input.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does the Member agree that that is the very point of the process? Whilst I accept that it is an Executive Bill, the Member has been very clear that she wants to work with the Minister and try to address the issues that have been raised. The very point of bringing legislation to the House is to debate it, look at it, raise issues and fix things that may be wrong with it. No Executive Bill can come to the House and expect to have no scrutiny because it has gone through the Executive. That cannot be allowed to happen. That is what would put the institutions at risk.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you for your intervention as well. I could not agree with you more. I welcome the fact that the Minister is trying to tackle the issue, but there are other issues, and that is what the scrutiny process is about, as he knows. Although his amendments are technical in nature and cover some of the gaps, there are fundamental flaws in the Bill that we have to scrutinise, and doing so is my job.

The most significant concerns about the amendments that remain relate to cost recovery, liability, enforcement, responsibilities and the practical operation of the new framework. The Department's position has been that councils will be able to recover costs from property owners. However, the practical reality is more complicated. There will be cases that involve unknown ownership, complex ownership arrangements, disputes around responsibility or circumstances where owners simply do not have the financial means to repay the costs incurred. Having the legal power to recover costs does not mean that those costs will always be recovered in practice. Where councils are unable to recover those costs, the financial burden does not simply disappear. Ultimately, it falls on the council and, therefore, the ratepayer. As elected representatives, it is our responsibility not only to improve our communities but to protect the public purse and stand up for and put money in the pockets of working people and families.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for giving way, which I really appreciate. I want to ask this question in a constructive way so that we can look at the issues as a whole. Noting all the issues around cost recovery and the practical difficulties that the Member listed, does she accept that there is already a cost to those who live or trade beside dilapidated premises, in that their property loses value? If more buildings become dilapidated, the effect will be a knock-on loss in rates revenue for councils. We also have to look at those issues when it comes to the rates cost to councils and the prevention of further dilapidation. That can affect immediate neighbours as well as entire neighbourhoods and high streets.

Ms Finnegan: I absolutely appreciate that, and that is why we agree with this in principle. I see that in Newry and Armagh every day of the week, and people come to my constituency office to express their frustration. However, we need to make this workable. It is not a huge ask for the Minister to listen to those who will have to implement the Bill's provisions and make those changes, and we have the opportunity to do that.

We recognise that the Minister's amendments in this area are an attempt to address some of the concerns raised during the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. However, acknowledging a problem is not the same as resolving it. The Minister's amendments do not fully address the wider concerns about cost recovery. For that reason, while we recognise the intent behind the amendments and the objective of creating a stronger enforcement framework, we remain concerned that the necessary protections and resources are not in place. Therefore, we will abstain on some of the amendments.

The report by the Assembly's independent Research and Information Service (RaISe), which was prepared by Dr Ryan Kee, is particularly relevant to the debate. It is important to state that the report does not recommend supporting or opposing the Bill, but it provides independent evidence that reinforces many of the concerns raised by the local government sector. It challenges the assumption that the legislation will be cost-neutral. It highlights evidence from Building Control professionals who have questioned whether councils will, in practice, always be able to recover their costs and warned that councils could ultimately face significant financial liabilities.

The report also identifies the potential scale of the challenge, with approximately 34,500 vacant properties across the North. Of course, the fact that a property is vacant does not automatically mean that it is dilapidated or dangerous. However, if even a small proportion require intervention, councils could be dealing with thousands of additional enforcement cases. That raises serious questions around staffing, expertise and capacity. The report also raises concerns about whether the proposed fixed penalties would provide a sufficient deterrent. Evidence from Building Control professionals suggests that remediation works can cost between approximately £80,000 and £90,000 in standard cases and rise to approaching £2 million in more complex cases. Against that backdrop, some owners may be prepared to absorb a £500 fixed penalty rather than treat it as an incentive to carry out necessary works.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. She has raised some points of interest. Aside from the Bill at hand, the Department of Finance currently collects rates from property owners across Northern Ireland. I have found that there can be difficulties with that when properties have been lying vacant for a significant period. Two such properties in my constituency were left to two family members. The houses, which had been very valuable properties, were left in a terrible state. Rates have not been collected on either property for the past 10 years. Surely there could be a mechanism to incentivise action to be taken by the Department of Finance to get people to look after those properties; otherwise, they would be repossessed. Would your party consider a specific increase in the rates burden of people who deliberately let properties lie vacant?

Ms Finnegan: I thank you for your intervention. That conversation certainly needs to be had. I appreciate your point.

As I said, the concerns extend to the wider operational framework, which includes information-gathering powers, entry powers, fixed penalties and departmental guidance. Those provisions will require significant officer time, specialist expertise and increased administrative capacity. They will also, inevitably, create greater public expectation that councils will intervene. Despite placing those additional responsibilities on councils, DAERA has shown no commitment to provide dedicated core funding to allow councils to deliver the functions effectively. Unfortunately, that is where the Bill falls short. In other jurisdictions where comparative powers are in place, local authorities are provided with dedicated resources and funding to ensure that the powers can be exercised effectively and consistently. If we are serious about tackling dereliction, we cannot simply transfer responsibility from central government to local government and assume that uncertain cost recovery mechanisms will make the system pay for itself. A successful model requires investment, proper resourcing and a realistic understanding of the challenges that councils face on the ground. Without that support, the financial and operational pressure will fall on councils and, ultimately, on the ratepayer.

Mr Blair: I really appreciate the Member's giving way again. I ask this — again, not to be mischievous but in order for us all to be clear — does the Member accept that central government per se does not have responsibility for dilapidation, that the responsibility lies with the owner and therefore that it is not representative to infer that the Bill will transfer responsibility from central government to local government? Central government is not responsible, and local government will not become responsible, for a property. The responsibility for dilapidation will sit with the owner, as it does currently.

Ms Finnegan: Fair enough. I have made my point clear.

I will address the amendments that other Members have tabled. Sinn Féin has considered each amendment carefully. Our position throughout the process has been guided by one simple question: does the amendment make the legislation more workable, more effective and more capable of being delivered by councils in practice? While we recognise the intention behind the SDLP's amendments, we do not believe that they address the fundamental concerns identified by the local government sector around funding, legal certainty, operational capacity and deliverability. In some cases, the amendments risk creating further administrative responsibilities for councils without addressing the underlying issue of resources. For that reason, Sinn Féin will not support the SDLP's amendments, although we get the rationale behind them.

I return to the Minister's overall approach. After almost a decade since the original consultation, councils should have been presented with legislation that was not only ambitious in its intentions but properly funded, legally robust and capable of being delivered in practice.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Ms Finnegan: I have given way many times, Minister, so, at this stage, unfortunately, I will not.

The Minister had the opportunity to bring forward a framework that would genuinely empower councils to transform neglected areas and tackle long-standing dereliction. We share the ambition behind the Bill — we absolutely do — but the practical foundations required to make that ambition a reality have not been fully put in place. The Minister has recognised some of the concerns raised by the local government sector and has tabled amendments in response. However, recognising concerns is not the same as resolving them. The central question remains: when councils are required to intervene, thereby incurring significant costs, and when those costs cannot be recovered, who will carry the burden? The answer is clear: councils and, ultimately, the ratepayer. As elected representatives, our responsibility does not end with passing legislation that looks good on paper. Our responsibility is to ensure that legislation works in practice and that working people and families are not left picking up the bill for responsibilities that should be properly funded by central government. The Assembly's responsibility is not simply to pass amendments but to ensure that those amendments deliver legislation that works, is properly funded and gives councils not just the powers to act but the resources, legal certainty and practical support to use those powers effectively.

That approach will be reflected in our voting position today. We will support the amendments and clauses that will provide councils with effective and workable powers. Where, however, the amendments do not adequately address our concerns about legal certainty, financial exposure, operational capacity and the absence of dedicated funding, we will abstain.

Mr T Buchanan: At the outset, I welcome the importance of the legislation before the House today. While it is a step in the right direction for our towns and villages, it is perhaps not the silver bullet that covers all the areas that will be brought into focus.

I acknowledge the scrutiny that the Bill was subject to in Committee. We heard from quite a few witnesses. The Bill went back and forth between departmental officials and the Committee on numerous occasions, as we sought to iron out concerns that had been raised. There is no doubt that there are still some concerns, as we have heard in the House today already. While 36 amendments were tabled, 32 are from the Minister, most of which are technical in nature in order to tidy up the drafting, improve clarity and help correct the terminology in the Bill. The amendments were fully scrutinised, and there were no dissenting voices to any of them when it came to agreeing to them at Committee.

Some amendments, however, go beyond tidying up the wording of the Bill and instead go to the very heart of how the legislation will operate on the ground, including the extra burdens that it will place on already overstretched councils. I will speak to some of those amendments briefly.

Amendment No 19 focuses on cost recovery for fencing off and watching dangerous buildings, but it fails to provide a financial framework for councils for that. It clarifies that councils may recover the cost of fencing off or watching buildings that pose a danger to the public, but clarity is not the same as practicality. The fact is that councils can recover the cost only if the owner is willing to pay. Councils will likely find that, in a number of cases, the owner is absent, insolvent or simply unwilling to pay. While the amendment improves the wording of clause 12, it does not really address the underlying problem of new duties being created by the Bill without the resources to deliver them, which will again place the onus on councils to recoup the costs or, ultimately, to allow the ratepayer to carry the financial burden. Considering that, surely the Minister should look again at finding some way to assist councils in that regard.

Amendment No 22 will expand the ability of councils to require information from individuals while giving the Department power to restrict what information can be asked for. In reality, however, every notice, every new form and every new administrative step will be another cost to councils. We simply cannot keep relying on councils to pick up the cost. We cannot pretend that council budgets are elastic, with plenty of stretch left in them. As is the case in many other sectors, councils are under pressure. There is concern from councils across Northern Ireland about those issues.

Amendment No 26 will tighten the conditions under which a lay inspector may obtain a warrant to enter premises. While that is a safeguard for property rights, it will increase the administrative load on councils. Inspectors will now need to demonstrate refusal or anticipated refusal and demonstrate that no alternative route exists. While that is legally sound, it will be operationally heavy for councils to enforce.

Amendment No 28 clarifies that paying a fixed penalty will discharge liability only up to the date of payment. If the person continues to ignore the maintenance notice, they will remain liable. While no one will argue against that, it nevertheless increases the enforcement work for councils in monitoring and revisiting a notice and, potentially, prosecuting. Again, that creates another issue that councils have concerns about.

One of my colleagues will deal with the SDLP amendments, so I will leave that to the side.

The Bill has good intentions, and I hope that it works and delivers for our rural areas, towns and villages. However, I have some concerns about its delivery, and I ask the Minister to continue to work and liaise with councils on the Bill to ensure that, when it is passed by the House and the responsibilities for delivery are passed to the councils, they are in a position to deliver on it and the people in the towns and villages and we, as elected representatives, will be able to see the benefit of delivery from the legislation.

Mr Blair: I rise as Alliance spokesperson on DAERA and as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. At the outset, I again express the Alliance Party's support for the Bill. It is long-awaited and crucial legislation that would empower our district councils with the necessary tools to address the pressing issue of dilapidated and dangerous buildings in our town centres, villages and wider communities. Those properties are not only eyesores for the local community but decrease property values, pose health and safety risks and have a harmful impact on the wider environment.

I wish to take a moment to acknowledge the work of the Minister and his officials in bringing forward the Bill. The legislation has been improved through the Committee scrutiny process, and we have heard some mention of that already. That included input from key stakeholders. I hope they feel that their views have been heard up to this point and, where possible, that those views have been addressed.

To reflect the improvement and refinement of the Bill as it works its way through the Assembly's legislative process, a number of amendments have been tabled by my Alliance colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and Alliance supports those amendments. They are technical in nature and, therefore, sensible, constructive and consistent with the purpose of the Bill, which I outlined when I started.

There are also amendments tabled by Mr McCrossan, and I want to be clear about the stance that Alliance will take on those. The first of Mr McCrossan's amendments would place a statutory duty on the Department to appoint a person or body to carry out periodic reviews of dilapidated buildings and related matters. While I can fully appreciate the logic behind that amendment, Alliance believes that the most appropriate body to assess the level of dilapidation in any area is the district council. Given the way that the amendment is framed, it would also come at a significant cost to the public purse and would not therefore represent good value for money. Furthermore, amendment No 34 would require district councils to:

Departmental officials have been clear from the outset that the Bill should not impose additional statutory duties on district councils. That amendment and, indeed, the previous one would do just that. The Minister spoke only yesterday at Question Time and again in the debate today about the discretionary nature of the Bill to assist local councils in dealing with dilapidation and dereliction. The amendment would add a burden and a commitment. Ultimately, the legislation is intended to give councils more effective powers, not to burden them with additional layers of reporting that may have limited practical value. If councils wish to keep records, that should be a matter for local judgement rather than a statutory requirement.

The remaining two amendments tabled by Mr McCrossan are consequential to the two amendments that have already been addressed. They are dependent on the earlier proposals. The same concerns apply, and therefore Alliance does not intend to support them at this stage.

I will conclude with a few points. The underlying aim of the Bill is to give councils practical powers to deal with dilapidation proportionately and flexibly. We should be careful not to undermine that objective by layering new statutory duties upon our district councils that would add complexity and cost and, potentially, create duplication without adding any significant benefits to tackling the issues caused by derelict buildings.

Despite the last-minute reservations that Sinn Féin have expressed today, our focus is on the right issues. We must continue to focus on the fact that this is an Executive Bill coming through with cross-party support at that stage; that there was no dissention at the AERA Committee, which examined it in detail for a considerable period; and that there is an overwhelming need to address dilapidation and dereliction in our high streets and hamlets. For those reasons, I look forward to the Bill's continued progress through the House, and I look forward to working with others on delivering it.

Mr McAleer: I will follow on from the key points made by my colleague Aoife Finnegan MLA. First, I record our appreciation of the Committee staff, including Janice and Glenda, for the work that they did. I also thank the Bill Office for its assistance during our scrutiny of the Bill. We have had more than 22 Committee sessions on the Bill, so we have given it due consideration.

I am frustrated, as many Members are, by the long-standing dereliction in our constituencies — in towns and villages across the district. That was reflected on by Daniel McCrossan, who is a West Tyrone constituency colleague of mine. People want to see action, and they have a right to expect us, as legislators, to provide councils with effective tools to address the issues. We support the ambition of the Bill — we made that clear at First Stage and at Committee Stage, and we have made it clear today — to give councils stronger powers to intervene. However, the stronger powers must be accompanied by a framework that is properly resourced, legally robust and workable. We have taken a considered view on all of the amendments. Aoife has outlined our position on the amendments. Basically, we will support the amendments that, we feel, strengthen the workable provisions of the Bill and improve its practical implementation.

From a resource point of view, which is another key debate, and looking at the practicalities of the Bill, we must not create a situation in which councils will be expected to take on significant new responsibilities, incur substantial costs and manage increased workloads without the necessary resources. When I looked through the Committee report, I saw that those issues kept being raised by councils and many other stakeholders who spoke about support, resourcing, the review — I appreciate that a review clause has been added — and the fact that the powers are discretionary.

During the Committee Stage, it was also said that there 11 councils in the North, each of which has its local development plan (LDP). It will be a challenge to achieve consistency across the North. There are three council areas in our West Tyrone constituency, for instance.

We heard a lot from NILGA and received correspondence from SOLACE about the costs and the fear that costs could not be recovered. If legal challenges were brought to councils about notices that were made, it would be costly to the ratepayer. In other jurisdictions where comparable powers are in place, local authorities are provided with the resources to ensure that the powers can be exercised effectively. That is the standard that we should aim for.

Our position is a balanced one. We support the parts of the Bill that will give councils meaningful powers to tackle dangerous and defective properties. However, where significant concerns remain about legal uncertainty, financial exposure, operational capacity and the absence of dedicated council funding, we will not support those provisions.

Miss McIlveen: I am pleased to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. As you noted, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you chastised me earlier, I have been here a long time. I first raised the issue of the need for powers to be given to councils to address dilapidation in February 2012 with the then Minister Attwood in a motion that I brought to the Assembly on behalf of the DUP. During that debate, I referred to the enforcement difficulties being faced by councils, highlighting many of those issues along with problems that had been brought to me by environmental health officials in the then Ards Borough Council. I went through some of the prevailing legislation and suggested that that was something that the Minister needed to address. I was delighted to find a willing Minister, which is not always the case, so credit to Alex Attwood. However, it is, perhaps, disappointing that it has taken a further 14 years for us to get to this stage. After all this time, I remain an advocate for the creation of these powers, and therefore I welcome the Bill.

At its heart, it is a practical piece of legislation that seeks to address a problem that communities across Northern Ireland know only too well. That has certainly been mentioned in the Chamber today. We have all seen buildings and sites that have been neglected for years, creating eyesores, damaging local confidence, undermining regeneration efforts and, in some cases, posing genuine risks to public safety. We have all had complaints from constituents asking what is being done about the problem. The evidence presented to the AERA Committee demonstrated a broad consensus that the current legislative framework is no longer fit for purpose. Much of the law in the area is outdated. It is fragmented across a range of statutes, and it is often difficult for councils to use it effectively. As the Minister said, the Bill represents an opportunity to modernise those powers, consolidate enforcement mechanisms and provide councils with a clearer and more effective framework for tackling dilapidated buildings and neglected land — a problem that has worsened, not improved, in the intervening 14 years.

I appreciate that there is discomfort among councils about the application of some of the powers, and we heard that throughout the Committee Stage. The fundamental objective of the Bill, however, is a good one. It is important, however, that the Department is supportive of councils in delivering clear statutory guidance on the subjective terms in the legislation as well as the discretionary nature of the powers being conferred, and also on enforcement. The Committee heard that the Bill would bring Northern Ireland more closely in line with powers elsewhere in the United Kingdom and that it would provide councils with a coherent set of tools to intervene where buildings and sites have fallen into disrepair and strengthen the ability of councils to recover costs when they are required to take action. Those are important reforms if we are to be serious about tackling blight in our streets.

Dereliction does not affect just the appearance of an area. It discourages investment, adversely impacts on neighbouring property owners, contributes to antisocial behaviour and creates a sense among communities that they have been forgotten. In giving councils a more effective means of addressing those problems, the Bill has the potential to support regeneration, improve local environments and increase civic pride in towns, villages and urban neighbourhoods across Northern Ireland. However, the Bill alone, as others have mentioned, cannot achieve that. In my constituency of Strangford, Ards and North Down Borough Council's Empty to Energised is a vehicle by which the council wants to bring vacant commercial properties back into use in Newtownards town centre. It is finding, however, that closed catchment in NI Water assets means that new connections cannot be made in properties vacant over five years, so steps need to be taken by other Departments to ensure that the causes of dereliction and dilapidation are addressed.

Our support for the Bill and the amendments tabled by the Minister does not mean that we are ignoring the concerns that were raised during the Committee's scrutiny. The Committee carefully examined the balance between public interest and private property rights. The powers in the Bill are significant and, as with any enforcement legislation, need to be exercised fairly, proportionately and transparently. Property owners should have clear rights of appeal and access to due process. Enforcement should always be targeted at genuine cases of dilapidation and neglect rather than becoming an unnecessary burden on responsible owners who face temporary difficulties.

There is a real onus on the Department to ensure that the passing of the Bill does not mark the end of its role in this. I have said clearly that statutory guidance must go hand in hand with the powers and that there must be clarity on that. The Committee heard the concerns of local government stakeholders about resources and implementation, which we have heard about from other Members. Granting councils additional powers is one thing; ensuring that councils have the capacity, expertise and funding to use those powers effectively is another. If the legislation is to succeed, it must be accompanied by appropriate guidance, training and support. Otherwise, there is a risk that communities' expectations will be raised without councils having the practical ability to deliver the expected outcomes. In the short term, at least, it will be very much about managing those expectations.

Another important issue raised during Committee Stage scrutiny relates to historical and heritage buildings. Northern Ireland's built heritage is an asset that must be protected. In some cases, buildings may appear neglected but possess significant historical or architectural value. It is therefore essential that the new powers operate in such a way as to complement existing heritage protections and, where possible, to encourage restoration, rather than simply focusing on enforcement for its own sake.

Prevention should remain an important principle. While councils need effective powers to address the most serious cases, we should encourage engagement with owners at an early stage and seek voluntary compliance where possible. The best outcome is often the one that is achieved through cooperation rather than enforcement.

The case for reform is compelling. The Bill provides a long-overdue opportunity to replace outdated legislation with a modern framework that better serves communities, supports regeneration and helps councils to address persistent problems that have too often gone unresolved. No legislation is perfect, and the Committee's scrutiny has highlighted areas where safeguards, guidance and implementation arrangements will require careful attention. Those concerns should continue to inform the Assembly's consideration of the Bill. However, the principle underpinning the legislation is sound. Communities deserve protection from the blight caused by long-term dereliction and neglect, and councils deserve effective powers that are clear, workable and proportionate.

I do not wish to repeat too much more of what other Members have said. We are content to support amendment Nos 1 to 32 and amendment Nos 34 and 36. Amendment No 33 is bureaucratic, unwieldy and, potentially, costly. The Bill proposes that councils be given discretionary powers to take the most appropriate action in the circumstances. Amendment No 33 is at odds with that. How a Department-appointed body or person would gather the necessary evidence to meet the obligation is not made clear. The number of buildings, structures and sites will be huge, but access issues are not made clear. How a structure will be established as being dangerous without a comprehensive survey is not made clear, and the reasons for having such an audit or review are not made clear. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support that amendment or, as a result, amendment No 35.

We are content with the requirement for individual registers to be kept that is set out in amendment No 34, as that is in keeping with other environmental legislation, and for the registers to be open for inspection if needs be. That ties in with the review that forms part of amendment No 32.

In conclusion, I thank the departmental officials, the witnesses, the Committee Clerk and the AERA Committee team, and, of course, the Bill Office for their work and support during the Bill's Committee Stage.

Mr Wilson: This has been an interesting process. It must be made clear at the outset that the legislation will be passed from the House to our 11 councils to operate. That is not an action without significant impact, as we have heard from other Members in the House today. That being the case, I have concerns that no extra resourcing will come from DAERA to our councils to assist them with the exercise of these functions.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not, for a single moment, dispute the point that you made; it is a good and well-made point. However, in reality, subsection (2) of some of the first few clauses states that "the council may" exercise its powers. The Bill does not mean that a council must act. A council "may" act, and, if a council does not have the fiscal provision to do that, it is unlikely to do so. That is not to take away from our ambition to work with the Minister and the Executive to find the additional money that may be required. In reality, I think that some of this is being misrepresented. The legislation states that a council "may" act.

Mr Wilson: I thank the Member for his intervention. He will appreciate that I came from a council quite recently — within the past six months. I have an affinity with my colleagues on Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough (ABC) Council — I know that one of them was on the Committee — and they said that they would very much like resources. The pressures on council resources are quite fresh in my mind. That is why I cannot not say that in the House. At times, a chasm exists between the House and councils that we should be working harder to bridge. The Bill is part of that process.

The process is now at this point, and the legislation will, hopefully, soon become another tool in the shed of our councils across Northern Ireland. It is clear that, around Northern Ireland, there are a high number of dilapidated buildings and structures — that almost goes without saying — and this is an attempt to enable councils to have more powers to deal with those types of structures.

The process involving the AERA Committee was considerable. It was a new experience for me as a new Member. It was interesting to scrutinise the legislation, taking it line by line and working through all the clauses and proposed amendments. That was an enlightening and enjoyable process for me.

I have raised concerns about the potential for duplication of legislation, and I point to the existing powers of the Department for Infrastructure. I raised that with the Minister recently in a question for written answer. His response made particular reference to article 51 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. He stated:

I recognise that, Minister, but, on that point, it is important to cite the article in the Order that relates to "Dangerous land adjoining roads". Article 51 states:

— in this case, DFI —

That is slightly concerning, given that, in my public representational role over the past 20 years, I have seen, on many occasions, a ping-pong approach between DFI and councils about who should deal with the dangers that are present on the edge of a public footpath or road. That is the main and clear domain of the Bill in attempting to refresh and update laws that have not been changed in many years. I feel that, even with this legislation, there will still be that ping-pong approach between councils and DFI in the circumstances.

From looking at the Roads Order, I feel that there remains very much a responsibility on DFI to take action. Like the AERA Minister, I am not in favour of a system that provides escape routes for one section of government. He should have a conversation with his counterpart in DFI about that, as that responsibility should be reasonably shared. I would like the Minister to respond on that matter, either in the House or to me in writing.

Given that there are 11 councils, it is possible, if not most likely, that there will be 11 different responses to the legislation and 11 methods of applying the law. NILGA has taken a keen interest in the legislation, and rightly so. Its involvement with the Committee was very useful. The fact that extra sessions were organised with the Bill Office and departmental officials was important and, in my view, necessary. At Committee, I made the point that, when legislation such as this, which is to be administered by our councils, is being developed, councils must be heard fully. Our councils are at a tier of government that cannot be detached from this legislature. Legislation with the greatest buy-in that has been worked up with the widest possible slate of opinions has the greatest chance of success. That having been said, in coming to the Assembly with my experience in local government, I know that councils still have concerns with the legislation. It is because I recognise that that I am not in favour of amendment Nos 33 or 35. I feel that they would place an even greater burden on our councils' already stretched resource requirements. As I said, I have an affinity with ABC Council and am acutely aware of the dilapidation issues that exist in the town and village centres in my constituency.

The other amendments seek to streamline the legislation, and I understand their inclusion. It is important that amendment No 32 be progressed, as not to have a review mechanism for this significant legislation would be highly regrettable and lead to important points that councils would raise being missed, because, by the time of the review, the councils would have built up a considerable weight of experience. I therefore urge the Minister to resource the review properly to ensure that it is wide-ranging and encompasses fully the experience of all 11 councils. Indeed, should councils speak with one voice that a particular provision in the legislation has proven in practice to be ineffective, inefficient, too costly or not to have had the impact promised, I hope that the Minister will present with an attitude to adjust the legislation and ensure that the best possible legal outcomes are obtained for our councils.

I take the opportunity to thank everyone who played their part in creating and contributing to the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Happy birthday to you. Others have said it, and I wanted to make sure that I did not omit doing so.

Mr Blair: I forgot.

Mr Muir: Did you forget, John?

Mr Blair: I forgot, yes.

Mr Muir: John shares in those wishes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you.

Mr Muir: I thank Members for the debate and for raising the issues that they did. It is important that I put on record my thanks to the Committee for its deliberations. It was an extended Committee Stage, and good work was done in taking evidence from witnesses.

I will pick up on a couple of the issues that were raised during Consideration Stage. The Chair of the Committee raised a number of issues, one of which was how a council will recover its costs if an owner cannot be traced. Clause 12(2) provides that, in court proceedings to recover costs:

As is the case for serving a notice under the Bill, the Department was keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Before deciding to recover costs from a particular person, it will be in order for a council to satisfy itself that it is appropriate to pursue that person for the costs. The provision of robust and effective measures to ensure that the appropriate person or organisation pays for the necessary remedial actions is key to minimising costs to the public pursue and to preventing unscrupulous property owners from deriving financial benefit from letting buildings fall into disrepair.

Under the Bill as drafted, councils will have to use their judgement on a case-by-case basis to determine whether to begin enforcement proceedings if the likelihood of recovering costs is minimal. It is considered reasonable to assume that they will adopt an approach that does not put their finances at risk and that ensures that they maximise success in the interests of the ratepayer. The inability to trace an owner should not inhibit a council from carrying out the works itself. Owners or other persons of interest should and will be actively pursued. I am conscious of councils' desire for the legislation to work in an effort to improve and regenerate their areas, using a variety of methods. Those can include Land and Property Services searches, Companies House searches and section 16 information notices. Therefore, there are means to explore that.

In relation to the issues raised by Patsy McGlone during the debate on the engagement with the Department for Communities, I can confirm that, as was previously set out, the Department for Communities is working in partnership with the Department for Infrastructure and my Department on the Shaping Sustainable Places programme. The recently published responses to the consultation on that are useful to consider.

The Shaping Sustainable Places programme is a long-term, £150 million physical regeneration programme that aims to support the transformation of villages, towns and city centres across Northern Ireland, helping to deliver long-term benefits for places and the people who use them. The programme articulates a vision for maximising the limited budgets available for regeneration through focused, strategically aligned projects. The proposed programme would seek to deliver place-based regeneration and infrastructure interventions, which would be delivered by councils. It is intended that a final set of proposals will be brought forward for ministerial and Executive consideration in the coming months.

I understand that Patsy's contribution was part of an intervention, but Daniel McCrossan referenced the Ulster University report of 2018. It was commissioned for my Department to establish the scale of the problem across all property types. While it attempted to place cost estimates under different scenarios for remediation costs, the fact is that the costs should, first and foremost, fall to those with a financial interest in a property. The Bill seeks to do that by including robust cost recovery provisions, including a charge on land, the power of sale and financial penalties. Hopefully, that sets that out.

In relation to the contributions from Áine Murphy and Sinn Féin's perspective, I recognise the broad support for the principles —. Sorry, it was Aoife. I am grateful for the support for the broad principles of the Bill. Hopefully, it will pass Consideration Stage, and we can move the Bill forward. I did state that I was disappointed and rather taken aback by the approach that has been outlined today. I first heard how Sinn Féin was likely to vote on the issue in the canteen yesterday. I hope that the Government of Northern Ireland can be better than that and that we can try to work through it. I was disappointed because I am very conscious of the report that came from the Committee, which, we understood, had been agreed unanimously in Committee. Therefore, I took that as an expressed position from all members on the Committee.

I have tried, and I set it out yesterday in Question Time and again today, to be very conscious of the concerns of local government. We have done significant engagement on that, and we are very clear —

Ms Finnegan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Ms Finnegan: It is fair to say that we support the principle of the Bill, but if you would like to get feedback from Sinn Féin in the future, the canteen is probably not the place to get that feedback. Come to me directly, and we can outline that. Agreements were made in the Committee, but we had further discussion, and you had further discussion, and we had hoped that those changes could have been made to make the Bill workable. I hope that you will appreciate that.

Mr Muir: I appreciate that, but I heard what your position was likely to be, and I reached out to the Chief Whip of your party to understand the position, and it has now been articulated today in the Chamber. I try to work with people to address their concerns. It is an Executive Bill. I am trying to understand the issue. It is Executive legislation, and we need to have trust to progress legislation in this place. We have diligently sought to try to address the concerns of local government, and statutory guidance will be published that will hopefully give the clarity that is required.

I am also conscious that the AERA Committee wrote back to SOLACE in response to recommendations made on 22 May. The Committee then gave detailed consideration and due diligence to all proposals submitted by NILGA, alongside the Department's responses, as set out in the Committee's report on the Bill. Whilst Committee members noted that not all of NILGA's proposed amendments had been taken forward by the Minister, the Committee was content with the rationale that the Department provided for not proceeding with those amendments. The report concludes by stating that the Committee made extensive efforts — I value those efforts — to facilitate and respond to stakeholder input, including accommodating late-stage evidence from NILGA and Building Control Northern Ireland. That included the organisation of dedicated round-table sessions involving departmental officials and Assembly Bill Office officials, which represented a significant and, in the Committee's view, proportionate response to the issues raised.

I understand the concerns, but if the Committee has done the work — I am grateful for that — and the Department carried out significant engagement as part of that, and we have reached Consideration Stage. I do not know what more I can do about concerns that have now been articulated at a late stage in this place, but, hopefully, we can move forward. We will have Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage. I do not agree with the Member —.

Ms Murphy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Ms Murphy: As we move to Further Consideration Stage, will you commit to further engagement with NILGA?

Mr Muir: I will be happy to engage, but I need to understand the particular request. I set out the role of the statutory guidance, which will be important. Hardwiring definitions into the primary legislation could make the Bill inoperable; we have to be conscious of that impact. In the Bill, we are trying to reflect practice in the rest of the UK and Ireland. We must be attuned to the fact that it is a discretionary power and that it is for councils to make the decision on whether to intervene. There will be a benefit to councils' rates base in bringing dilapidated buildings back into use. We have done the engagement. I am very keen to work with councils, because they will be at the coalface of delivering the legislation. Tom Buchanan asked whether we would continue to engage with local government, and we will, particularly on the statutory guidance. We want to work in partnership with local government so that its needs are reflected in the guidance. That is the best way forward, rather than putting definitions and terminology in the Bill. Gareth Wilson mentioned my engagement with the Department of Infrastructure on roads legislation. I am happy to write to the Member about that.

The legislation seeks to provide a flexible opportunity for councils to implement the legislation as they choose. It is a discretionary power for councils to use. I value Michelle McIlveen’s contribution, and I understand that the legislation has been in gestation for a long time. It is clear that, after the Bill is passed, it will be for councils to use the powers. There is a difference of opinion on the amendments that Daniel McCrossan proposed, and the House will make a decision on those. It has been a useful debate. I thank the Committee for its work on the Bill. Hopefully, we can move through the Consideration Stage and continue the Bill's passage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister.

Before we commence, I remind Members that amendment No 27 is a paving amendment for amendment No 28, and amendment No 31 is a paving amendment for amendment No 34. Therefore, if Members are minded to support amendment Nos 28 and/or 34, they should consider supporting amendment Nos 27 and 31, as those are intended to be two packages.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I want to make sure that Members understand what they are voting on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will not call amendment No 35 as it is consequential to amendment No 33, which was not made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, please dwell and pause for one moment.

Members, the Business Committee agreed at its meeting today that the sitting on Monday 22 June should start at 11.00 am. To facilitate that, it is necessary to consider a motion to suspend Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) for 22 June. Before we move to the Question, I remind Members that cross-community support is required.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The motion is agreed, and the Assembly can sit from 11.00 am on Monday to after 7.00 pm.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Speaker has been notified by the nominating officer of the DUP that Pam Cameron has replaced Diane Forsythe as the Deputy Chair of the Audit Committee with immediate effect.

Members, please take your ease while we change the top Table.

Mr Speaker: Order, Members [Interruption.]

Leave quietly, please. We will get on with the business.

I said yesterday that the debate on the Justice Bill had been constructive and an example of good scrutiny. It is fair to say that, last night ,the wheels sort of came off, did they not? I do not intend to return to all of the points of order that were made last night, as it would probably take my office about two weeks to do that. Members may not like some of the amendments in front of them or the use of a petition of concern in the circumstances, but they are all valid. They are procedurally in order and are here for the House to deal with.

On the closure of debate motion, the debate had been going on for a few hours, but only four Members had been called to speak. The Deputy Speaker made the right and proper decision on the basis of procedural advice based on the rules of the Assembly and the Standing Orders that we work to that there had not been a reasonable opportunity for all parties to contribute. It is important for me as Speaker to say that that includes the smaller parties and independent Members, who also have a right to be heard.

The Business Committee had intended that the Justice Bill should conclude today, but, clearly, that is not possible. The Business Committee met today and agreed a way forward to complete the Justice Bill alongside other work over the next few sittings. I thank all of the party Whips for their constructive cooperation in achieving that. From the perspective of the Chair, regardless of the petition of concern, nothing can be assumed in two weeks' time, and, therefore, proper debate and scrutiny of the Bill, including the amendments in group 6, are still required. Therefore, I ask that Members return to constructive debate today to assist the Assembly to get this business done.

Let us return to the debate.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker

Mr Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.

Mrs Long: It is a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, when I raised the issue of appropriate language in the Chamber, I drew attention to the 2009 ruling of your predecessor William Hay, in which he said that not only the content of speech but the context of speech would be considered in deciding whether speech was appropriate. Last night, I raised a further point of order on the use of language by a Member saying out loud that Members in the House had spoken mistruths? That, as you will be aware, is contrary to the rulings of Erskine May, which have formed the basis of the rules of this House. I would like to receive some assurance that, while you may not answer those points of order today, they will, as valid points of order, be addressed at some point.

Mr Speaker: Your first point of order was dealt with yesterday. I spent some time on that before we commenced proceedings.

Last night, a lot of Members said a lot of things. That is the report that I have had from my staff. Members across the House would do well to reflect on the behaviour last night. It was somewhat unseemly. I know that Members may not have liked certain things that happened, but behaviour did not need to break down in the way that it did. Let us return to the Bill and get on with the work that lies ahead. I am not taking any further points of order.

Mr Speaker: Valid petitions of concern were presented yesterday in relation to amendment Nos 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 and 86. The debate on the amendments can still proceed. That includes debate on the amendments in groups 7, 8 and 9 at the appropriate points. However, the vote on the amendments will not be taken after the debate on group 6 is concluded, as section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires that there be a 14-day consideration period. The consideration period ends on 28 June 2026.

Following that, on 29 June 2026, only the petitions may be confirmed. If a petition is confirmed by 30 Members on 29 June, the vote on the amendment to which it relates will require cross-community support. If a petition is not confirmed by 30 Members, the vote on the amendment to which it relates will require simple majority support. In either case, the votes on amendments will not take place until a date after 29 June. As amendments are moved and voted on in the order in which they are listed in the Marshalled List, the Assembly cannot vote on any other amendments — amendment No 87 and the other amendments in the groups — or the remaining clauses until the Assembly has voted on the amendments that have been petitioned.

If that is clear, we will move on.

Miss McAllister: I had contemplated withdrawing my name from the speaking list for today's debate because of the petition of concern and the fact that any point that we make in the Chamber is, essentially, moot, given the number of Members who have signed the petition of concern. However, I still think that it is important that we continue with the debate today. In particular, for me, as an Alliance MLA, it is deeply frustrating that my vote will now not count in the vote that will take place following the 14 days. It is important to say that, while the DUP Members and some UUP Members can take away my vote, they will certainly not take away my voice.

The evidence is clear: criminalising children does not work. It criminalises vulnerability, entrenches inequality and fails children, victims and communities. I stand here to put forth my arguments in support of an evidence-based, empathetic and child-centred proposal. However, Members have ensured that Northern Ireland will yet again be left behind through their use of the petition of concern.

The petition of concern was created to protect minority rights as a safeguard for communities in Northern Ireland. We should not be surprised that it has been abused. To those who say that they use it legitimately, I say this: just because something exists does not mean that it is right. Frankly, I am disgusted by much of the misinformation that is being peddled by those who are not even confident enough in their arguments to put them to a democratic vote in the Chamber. That is an example of why people in Northern Ireland are frustrated with politics. Any time that we get close to change or even moderate progress, MLAs abuse the system when they have a different opinion.

Alliance has always called for reform. The Good Friday Agreement is not cemented in stone. We all know why the DUP relies on the petition of concern: it is about control and losing that control. Over the past number of years, the unionist vote has been splintering —.

Mr Speaker: Miss McAllister, I ask you to resume your seat for a moment. I know that you may be vexed about the use of the petition of concern mechanism, but we are here to debate the Bill, not the value, merit or demerit of the petition of concern. You have had an opportunity to express your view, but I would appreciate it if you could return to the Bill.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was the end of it. I was just going to say that I do not understand what the UUP is doing, because I do not even know which section of the party to speak to about it. The mere suggestion, however, that any Member believes that they are the only MLA who understands the issue that we are talking about is the height of ignorance. We heard that time and again during yesterday's debate.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: You know what? I will not, because you have said enough, and it is important that we get on with the debate.

It does not take just one person to get the issue right. I deal with young people. I speak to social workers who are concerned about the future of the children in their care. I deal with family members as well, and I also talk to victims. It is not just about me and what I have experienced as an MLA, however. I am certainly not in the business of making it all about me or being a one-man show. Instead, I engage with experts, stakeholders, children and young people, teachers, social workers and the police: the list goes on.

I will move on to the crux of the issue, which is why so many countries have already raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). Why, then, do a minority in the Chamber believe that those countries have got it wrong? Raising the minimum age is about protecting young people from exploitation and ensuring that they get the necessary intervention at a young age, which, ultimately, reduces their risk of reoffending, rather than about throwing kids into the criminal justice system when it is then so difficult to escape it. What does less reoffending mean? It means reduced crime and fewer victims. It is about giving kids a chance in life. It is about protecting the entire community that we represent. It is not about using hyperbole, misleading statements or misinformation to scaremonger.

I will touch on some of the completely inaccurate comments made in the Chamber yesterday on the issue. First and foremost, Members cannot make something up and claim it to be fact. Every Member is entitled to their opinion. Members are also entitled to use facts that suit their agenda, but it is important that those facts be grounded in evidence. Every MLA who does not engage with the evidence and with stakeholders needs to take a long, hard look at the job that they are doing.

I will talk about some of the most disparaging and misinformed comments made in the Chamber yesterday about legalising rape. The very fact that that issue was trivialised not only does a disservice to victims but completely ignores the reality of whom the perpetrators of rape and sexual violence are. It is also an insult to the public's intelligence to say that any MLA is supporting the legalisation of rape. If Members care about tackling sexual crime and the crisis that we face with ending violence against women and girls, they would not trivialise such a serious issue.

Ms Egan: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Ms Egan: I do not think that anyone in the House could accuse me of not caring about violence against women and girls. For me, it is one of the most important issues to raise in the Chamber. Does the Member think, however, that it is interesting and notable that Women's Aid responded to the consultation on the minimum age of criminal responsibility to say that it feels that it is appropriate to raise it?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for her intervention. It is important to acknowledge that many organisations, such as Woman's Aid and Victim Support, have said that the minimum age needs to be raised.

We have heard DUP and UUP Members argue and comment that we are unable to tell them what the system would look like. I ask them to listen. The fact that we have not answered the question in a way in which they wanted or liked does not mean that the question has not been answered. It does not mean that the work is finished either. The Justice Minister has already stated that the amendment would not be commenced until the framework was in place.

In the Chamber and in Committee, we often talk about learning from best practice in other jurisdictions around the world. We use the knowledge, information and evidence and can apply that here. We do not have to go far across the world, however. We can look to Scotland, which introduced the model of a children's hearing, under which a child is brought before such a hearing when harm is committed that is not a criminal offence — when someone is under the age of criminal responsibility. We also need to look at countries around the world that have a social justice system. There are many such countries — Denmark, Germany, Norway, Greece — where much research has been done into social justice system interventions. In some of that research, it was said that social methods of intervention were, at times, harsher than those in a criminal justice system.

All those issues are important and will establish part of the framework when the minimum age of criminal responsibility is raised, but we need to remember that we are discussing children and young people. Whilst a child may not be able to be arrested, they can be detained if the issue is serious — even if it is not — and there will be interventions. I will reflect on comments that were made about social work being the action of "beanbag" chats. That is a degrading comment to make about an entire profession. If the Member who made the comments had any idea of what, in reality, life is like for the people who interface with those minors on a daily basis — not the police but people who are on the ground and in schools every day — he would not call it "beanbag" work. It is the work of social workers, and degrading their profession is not becoming of an MLA.

To the Members who say that they are willing to look at a youth justice Bill in the next mandate — UUP Members in particular; I note that only one of its Members, albeit one who did not sign the petition of concern, is here — I say that we need a reality check. Does the Ulster Unionist Party believe that a proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility will get through an Executive, given how they currently operate, and that we could trust the DUP to put it on the agenda, never mind agree it as part of a Bill?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mrs Long: As further evidence on that, as Justice Minister, I did a write-round, which I am compelled to do, on two issues, the first being equal protection for children and the second being the minimum age of criminal responsibility. While I had positive responses from a number of Ministers, it is correct to say that, to allow the Bill to progress to this point, those elements were not able to be included as ministerial amendments. Therefore, the idea that an Executive would be able to take through a youth justice Bill is, to quote, I think, the Member who said it, "for the birds".

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her intervention and for clarifying that what I was talking about has already happened: it did not go through. Do we honestly believe that the DUP would have a sudden change of heart? We know that the DUP does not support raising the minimum age.

I will now mention a number of the organisations that have been in contact with me not only this year but over the years and that have been working on the issue for decades. There were many comments from across the Chamber, most of which came from MLAs to my right, suggesting that we were dangerous legislators; that we did not know what we were talking about; that the proposal was simply wrong and that it was from the United Nations; and that, because we did not know what the framework would look like, we could not possibly implement it now.

However, in speaking, as Alliance MLAs or in any other capacity, we are not alone. Many organisations in Northern Ireland have supported the call for recognition that "ten is too young". Instead of saying that to us, say it to them. Say it to Action for Children in Northern Ireland; ADD-NI Children's Charity; African Caribbean Support Organisation; Amnesty International; Angel Eyes; Ardoyne Youth Enterprises; ASCERT; Barnardo's; Belfast YMCA; Black and Minority Ethnic Women's Network; Bolster Community; British Association of Social Workers; Committee on the Administration of Justice; Children in Northern Ireland; Children's Law Centre; Community Restorative Justice Ireland; East African Youth NI; Enagh Youth Forum; Extern; Flourish NI; Forthspring Inter Community Group; Footprints Women's Centre; Forward South Partnership; Holy Trinity Youth Centre; Horn of Africa People's Aid Northern Ireland; the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium; Kaizen Safeguarding; Include Youth; Informing Choices; Invisible Traffick; JJ Rice and Company Solicitors; Law Centre NI; the Law Society of Northern Ireland; Ledley Hall Boys and Girls Club Trust; Londonderry YMCA; MACS Supporting Children and Young People; Mindwise; Mornington Community Project; National Children's Bureau; Nexus NI; Northern Ireland Rural Women's Network; NIACRO; Northern Ireland Alternatives; Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People — I hope that Robbie Butler heard that one; Northern Ireland Youth Forum; North West Youth Services; NSPCC Northern Ireland; office of the mental health champion; Parents for Inclusive Education; Participation and the Practice of Rights; Royal College of Psychiatrists in NI; Reclaim the Agenda; Save the Children; South Tyrone Empowerment Programme; St Malachy's Youth Centre; St Peter's Immaculata Youth Centre; Star Neighbourhood Centre; Start360; the British Psychological Society; Bytes Project; Centre for Children's Rights at Queen's University; the Fostering Network; the Rainbow Project; the Secondary Students' Union of NI; Turnaround Project; VOYPIC — Voice of Young People in Care; University and College Union, Queen's University; West Belfast Partnership Board; Women's Aid Federation NI; Women's Centre Derry; Women's Platform; Women's Resource and Development Agency; Youth Action NI; and Youth Work Alliance.

Do not just tell it just to Members in the Chamber; tell it to the over 70 organisations that signed the coalition's pledge recognising the fact that 10 is too young. Tell it to the experts who work on the ground every single day with young people who actually come into contact with the justice system; the experts who put their heart and soul into the issue, who have the evidence and who will come to any MLA with their facts and knowledge and take them on. Do not just tell us in the Chamber; tell the people and organisations out there.

Mr Dickson: Thank you. The Member, very powerfully, listed all the organisations that interact with young people in Northern Ireland, many of which interact with the justice system. Those organisations have expressed, very strongly and vocally, their opinion on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Does the Member agree that those organisations have to work with other organisations and Departments in Northern Ireland, including the Department of Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities? I would have thought that they will now have an interesting interface with the Ministers from those Departments. Does the Member agree that it is not just the Justice Department that those organisations and agencies have to work with, and that their relationship with other Departments, particularly those in which the Minister has decided to deploy a petition of concern, against the expert knowledge of those organisations, will be difficult in the future?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree, but I do not think that the DUP and UUP remotely care or have any shame about what they are doing by going against policy and evidence. Furthermore, if the Ulster Unionist Party was so concerned about what the amendment would do, perhaps the Department of Health would have taken a little bit more interest in getting it right at this stage. It is not just about Justice. The opportunity for the Department of Health to take a lead has been lost. I ask that the UUP reflects on that and then comes to us and tells us what it is doing. What are you doing to promote the work of Ray Jones and to implement all the recommendations from his review? That is moving so slowly.

That brings me to my next point. One of the recommendations from Ray Jones' review was to have a scoping exercise for the Department of Health and Department of Justice to work together.

Instead, through the scrutiny work that we saw at the Committee, it seemed that the Department of Health used it as an opportunity to lump responsibility onto the Department of Justice rather than to make the changes that are needed.

I will touch on some of the organisations. I have spoken many times in the Chamber and used the words of young people who are either on the edge of care, in care or cared for by the state. Organisations such as Include Youth, the Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) and the Youth Justice Agency work with those kids every single day — Include Youth in particular. Young people in care are disproportionately more likely to come into contact with the justice system than their non-care-experienced counterparts, yet nobody on the opposing side of the argument seems to put up any sort of fight for those kids. It is our experience that children and young people who have become involved in the criminal justice system have complex needs and experience multiple layers of trauma. Statistics from the Youth Justice Agency for 2024-25 show that 60% of admissions to the Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC) were from kids in the care system. When some of those kids are able to be released into the community, the Department of Health does not step in. If the UUP is so concerned about this issue, maybe it will fix the system on its own side. Some 45% of those young people were subject to a care order, and almost 50% of the children who were brought into custody and under the care of police were in the care system.

Barnardo's has said that children living in care homes are more likely to be referred to the police for committing even a minor offence. I have seen that many times as a member of the Policing Board and as a member of the Health Committee. I have heard from many stakeholders and young people that the police were being called for issues that no parent would call the police for. I undertook to speak to young people and to people who work in the care homes, and I visited all those in my constituency of North Belfast — we have quite a number. There is no doubt that invaluable work is undertaken by many of the social workers and staff in those care homes, and the staff were the ones who, working with the police, took the initiative to make change — not the system or the Department of Health, but the staff themselves.

The Youth Justice Agency spoke recently about a particular case involving a child who had come from a children's home. Multiple offences occurred almost immediately on that child moving to the children's home, and offending continued that was directly related to that context. I say that because it is so important to highlight the issue of reoffending. We have one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility here in Northern Ireland, but in jurisdictions right across Europe there is evidence that supports the idea that those who are not criminalised reoffend less than those who are.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mrs Long: Does the Member agree that it would also help if the right supports were in place for vulnerable young people who are at risk of offending? One of the challenges is that, once a young person gets embroiled in the criminal justice system and in offending, it is very difficult to extricate them from it. Many of them, as you said, are care-experienced, and some will also be institutionalised to a degree. The problem is that young people are going absent from school and no action is being taken as social services are not equipped to deal with much of the pressure that they are under. If we had better teams of people working with vulnerable young people who are at risk of offending, we could reduce the number of victims and keep young people out of the justice system. That is what this is about.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her intervention. I absolutely agree with the point that she made around victims. We should always come back to the victims, because young people are victims too. Child criminal exploitation: those young people are victims. We need to ensure that what we do is right —.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that victims were shamefully used last night to score cheap political points?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for her intervention.

I note that the Victims' Commissioner has come out in support of raising the age of criminal responsibility. Furthermore, evidence from countries where the age has been raised shows that there are fewer victims because there are more interventions in those countries, especially in education and with parents. It has been shown that, when you intervene in the best way to achieve the best outcome for a child, the result is fewer victims.

In conclusion, I highlight that we are talking about today is a very small group of people in society who are exploited. They have come through trauma, and it is more than likely that they are living below the poverty line and in communities where they can be exploited. Their parents may already have had interactions with social services. We should seek to protect those people to ensure that their rights are protected and that they have a future. I am standing up not just for those people but for all victims — young people, adults and any other young person who needs a voice — because they, too, deserve a future.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the opportunity to speak at this stage of the debate on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. First, I will take a moment to thank the Ten is Too Young coalition, which is a group of six leading children's rights and justice organisations, and, more widely, the wider 60-plus organisations that Nuala just mentioned. All supported taking this huge opportunity to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I thank them for their invaluable research, briefing papers and ongoing engagement. I also take the opportunity to apologise to those organisations for the situation that played out yesterday. Reflecting on last night, I felt that the quality of the debate was nothing short of disgraceful and that democratic right of people here to deliver significant legislative change has been left in a futile state. The reality is that the most vulnerable children will continue to be criminalised, and the most disadvantaged of those vulnerable young children will suffer the most.

The Ten is Too Young coalition took evidence from a wide range of European countries that overwhelmingly use welfare responses, diversion, education, family support and child protection-based interventions. In those countries, there are legal thresholds for compulsory school attendance, social media bans, medical consent and more. To reflect modern research on developing psychology and neuroscience, we must reflect children's capacity. The science is clear: the human brain, especially the parts responsible for impulse control, judgement and understanding consequences, is still developing well into the mid-teens.

I am sure that everyone here can remember how they acted as a 10-year-old, 11-year-old, 12-year-old or 13-year-old. Children under the age of 14 often act impulsively and without the ability to fully grasp the long-term impacts of their actions. Surely, therefore, where we realise that there is a need to protect young people from premature exposure to adult responsibilities, adult risks and adult consequences, it is difficult to justify a system that continues to hold people criminally liable when they are of primary-school age.

I will focus my remarks on the impact of early criminalisation and the need for stronger, targeted welfare-based responses, early intervention and family support. Children's rights organisations have raised the issue of the criminalisation of care and the fact that children in care are over-represented in the criminal justice system here. We should all pause to reflect on the over-representation of children in care in the youth justice system. A report from 2022 contained an acknowledgement from legal professionals that disproportionately more children in care appear in court. In fact, since the report was written, the figures have continued to climb, and, as of 2024-25, 48·4% of children in custody were in care. I will say that again: 48·4%. That means that nearly half of all our young people who are detained have complex backgrounds stemming from the social care system, which clearly evidences a disproportionate over-representation.

Unsurprisingly, that is linked to several factors, such as individual and family backgrounds placing children and young people at increased risk of offending; extensive trauma, which fundamentally alters the nervous system and manifests itself in challenging behaviours; and heightened criminal involvement in residential settings compared with how similar issues will be resolved in a steady, nurturing family home.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mrs Long: There is also significant evidence, as, I am sure, the Member will agree, that children who are subject not to abuse but simply to neglect will often test boundaries in order to see whether somebody will intervene to say, "No". In cases of neglect, those boundaries will often be tested to the point at which a child ends up getting in trouble with the authorities; whereas, in a regular family in which people are invested, the "No" will come much more quickly, the care will come much more quickly and the children can be deflected away from such behaviour. Even children who have not suffered direct trauma but have suffered neglect can end up being put into that category of offender when, in fact, they need more attention and more time and energy invested in them.

Ms Ferguson: I agree 100%, and nobody across the House would dispute that, because they were young people themselves and tested boundaries. If children have love and a nurturing environment around them that sets boundaries and discipline, that is how they learn. I do not think that anybody can disagree with that.

Maintaining the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be reframed: it is actively choosing to keep a system in place that discriminates against children based on their vulnerability and their exposure to abuse, poverty, neglect, family breakdown and trauma. It is criminalising and detaining with no consideration of the emotional, educational and economic inequalities that those young people have faced or the future impact of stigmatisation or incarceration on their capability to turn their life around. As Members noted yesterday, adverse childhood experiences are significant, and the question that we should be asking is this: what happened to you? We know that there is investment across every Department in advancing training to ensure that people know what adverse childhood experiences are and how they should be working with and supporting our young people. Do we really believe that the best place for those vulnerable young people is behind bars, or do we believe that they deserve a chance to grow, to change and to be more than their worst mistake?

Criminalising children does not make any of us safer. It unfairly traps vulnerable young people — disadvantaged kids — into a cycle of offending. A criminal record at age 10, 11, 12 or 13 is, in my opinion, a life sentence in disguise for those young people. Instead of pushing those young people deeper into the justice system, we can collectively use welfare-based interventions, counselling and restorative justice to address the root causes of their behaviour, whether that is trauma, neglect, poverty or abuse. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child supports a minimum age of at least 14, and we wholeheartedly agree, with exceptions in only the most serious of cases: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration.

The Department's public consultation found that there was overwhelming support — 84% — for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. With each passing year, we are increasingly out of step with international standards and a contemporary understanding that is based on data and research on child development. We also live in a society in which around one in four children grows up in poverty. We also have some of the highest numbers of children in residential care and experiencing homelessness.

Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility fundamentally increases public safety. The evidence shows that avoiding criminal justice outcomes and processes is vital to reducing offending and reoffending among children and young people and that restorative responses significantly lower rates of violence and reduce the number of future victims. A renewed focus on community-led, trauma-informed and rehabilitative responses to childhood offending is required. Equally, targeted early interventions on child poverty, housing insecurity and institutional care are critical. If we are to divert children and young people away from the criminal justice system sustainably, we need to focus on meeting their needs and on delivering child-friendly justice.

Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 is not about excusing harmful behaviour. In fact, it is about preventing it. It is about recognising that children need guidance, not a criminal record. It is about replacing punishment with rehabilitation and substituting fear for opportunity. Criminalising children does not make anyone safer, but it does trap children in a cycle of offending. Countries that have made the change see fewer children reoffend, stronger communities and a better future for their young people. We can protect the public, honour victims and support children simultaneously. Through restorative practices, rehabilitation and secure care, where needed, we can deliver better outcomes without branding vulnerable children for life. Reform does not weaken the ability to intervene on harmful behaviour. Rather, it strengthens the interventions that will be used: interventions that are proven to better rehabilitate, to reduce reoffending and to improve public safety. Restorative justice can give victims a voice, an apology and real change, not just a sentence on a piece of paper. Let us choose a justice system that heals rather than harms our young people.

Give our children — all our young children — the chances that they deserve. Let us not punish children into becoming adults whom each and every one of us, and our communities, will fear. Instead, let us invest in a system in which they can become the types of adults that we need for our community into the future. Expert organisations, practitioners and human rights institutions all support that vital change. It is a progressive and evidence-based proposal that is rooted in international human rights standards. Instead, the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV have chosen to remove our ability to vote by misusing a mechanism that was introduced to protect minority rights to block progressive change. The absolute absurdity of that is playing out in practice now when the co-sponsor of the amendment and the Minister, who is the Bill sponsor, cannot even vote on their proposals. Those who signed the petitions of concern, particularly those in the UUP who initially refused to do so, should go and meet the 60-plus organisations that we have all met and explain their decision to them. Discuss the issue with them, read their evidence and relay to them the rationale and reasoning behind your decision on the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

We had a huge opportunity — a real chance — to make a positive change for our children and young people. We had an opening to follow the evidence and raise the minimum age, thus putting human rights at the forefront of our youth justice system. Rather than retain one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility across Europe, we had the opportunity to modernise our youth justice laws, put in place stronger, evidence-based interventions and enhance our existing youth justice provisions, which are recognised around the world.

The petition of concern was introduced as a process to protect minority rights, enable equality across communities and ensure human rights compliance. Instead, locally elected representatives have been blocked from exercising our duties to debate and vote on an important issue, yet we were elected by our communities to do so. It is completely unacceptable. In my opinion, it is a disgrace that the petition of concern was misused.

To those across the Chamber who deployed the petition in such a cynical manner, I say this: if you are so confident in your position, go and speak to the 60-plus organisations. Go and read the evidence and explain to them that they are wrong. Do not block the rest of us from exercising our legislative responsibilities, which we have been mandated to carry out by our constituents.

Finally, I appeal to those who have signed the petition of concern, particularly to those who claim to have the best interests of children at heart: it is not too late to change your mind. In two weeks' time, you will have the chance to remove your name from that cynical petition and let the democratic process happen. You have the chance to reflect, rethink and listen to the voices of the experts. I strongly encourage you to adopt these progressive, evidence-based proposals and raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Mr Givan: I follow Members from Sinn Féin, who really should just sit this one out. I will not be lectured on progressive politics and defending the rights of children by Sinn Féin. Not from a party and a republican movement that were kneecapping children, breaking their ankles, beating them with baseball bats and depriving them of fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers. They have the audacity to lecture us about the rights of children. Others who have absolute sincerity on the matter have spoken, but there is absolutely no credibility that any word from Sinn Féin will have any influence on me or my party when it comes to children's rights.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member acknowledge that, right now, the organisations listed by my colleague and by the Member who spoke before her have more faith in Sinn Féin than they do in the Minister for children?

Mr Givan: Well, at least the Member has decided to come in to join the debate. I was not sure: one minute, Sinn Féin is in; then Sinn Féin is out. [Interruption.]

I appreciate what the previous Member who spoke said when apologising to the public for the antics of her own colleague last night. She was right to apologise on her behalf. Maybe the Member herself can apologise for the behaviour last night. [Inaudible.]

Ms Finnegan: Education Minister —

Mr Givan: I am speaking from the Back Bench, although I am happy to speak about my role as Education Minister and reflect on that from the Back Bench. I am quite happy if the Member for Sinn Féin wants to have an interjection. I will give way rather than have her speak from a sedentary position.

Ms Finnegan: I am disgusted that the Education Minister, who is supposed to represent children and protect them, is standing up and doing quite the opposite from his speaking notes today.

Mr Givan: Again, I will not be lectured by anybody in Sinn Féin. [Interruption.]

You had a Sinn Féin Education Minister who was a self-confessed commander of the IRA. Let us get real when it comes to lecturing me about anything to do with my integrity and who I speak for. Sinn Féin can sit this one out. Sit it out. You have no integrity when it comes to talking about children's rights after what the republican movement engaged in.

I want to speak from the Back Bench today, but I am also the Minister of Education, and I do have a responsibility to protect children and teachers. My accountability is also to the electorate. Mr Dickson was concerned about how arm's-length bodies in my Department may be able to work with me.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that this is unprecedented: not that a Minister would make a contribution to the business of the House as a Back-Bench Member, but that a Minister would intervene in that way on another Minister's Bill that is going through the House and say that he is speaking as a Minister. When a justice Bill is brought to the House, I am there to speak on behalf of the Executive on that Bill. I would like a ruling on whether it is in order for other Ministers to come to the Chamber and argue openly about the status of a Bill when Members of their party could make the party political points.

Mr Speaker: It is important that the Member makes it clear that he is speaking from the Back Bench as a Back-Bench Member, and he has said that. He intends to speak not to amendments that were tabled by the Justice Minister or to the Bill but to amendments that others have tabled. I will hand back to the Member, and perhaps he will clarify that.

Mr Givan: I am happy to clarify that. I am speaking from the Back Benches, which is why I am not sitting on the Front Bench, but I am also the Minister of Education, and I will draw upon my experiences in that role to inform the House. It is important that Members have the opportunity to be informed, but maybe you do not want to know that, last year, 598 teachers and 1,974 classroom assistants were assaulted by pupils. Maybe you do not want to have that information to help inform the decision-making processes. I think that you should have that information, and I will impart it.

A Member: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Givan: I am going to make some progress. I have only been able to start my speech, and Members want me to give way. I will be generous in giving way.

I say this to the Minister of Justice: the amendments were tabled not by the Minister but by MLAs.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: The Minister was right to say that, when she attempted to bring it to the Executive, the DUP did not support it. I did not support it, and that is why these are not ministerial amendments. I will give way.

Mrs Long: I acknowledge that, but my point was a procedural one. We have not previously seen one Minister intervening from the Back Benches in a debate that another Minister is leading. That is a procedural matter to do with how we deal with Executive business. If the Member has come here to try to imply that, in some way, I wish to silence him on the issues that he wishes to raise, I point out that he has members of the Education Committee who could make his exact points very competently, I am sure. The question here is about a Minister engaging in debate with another Minister in the Chamber, and that does not seem to me to be procedurally correct. I ask the Member to have some respect for the fact that I am not trying to impugn his integrity; I ask that he does not impugn mine.

Mr Givan: I have not impugned the Minister's integrity.

Mrs Long: You did. You said that I did not want you to make your points and that maybe I did not want to hear them. You said that.

Mr Givan: With respect, Mr Speaker, the Member wishes to ascribe commentary to me that I did not make. I referred to "Members"; I did not say "the Minister". However, the Minister is a Member of the House. It is not unprecedented — far from it. In fact, I only wish that more Members contributed to debates. I am glad that there are some who do that in the Assembly. I think there should be more. Some who spoke a lot last night are not here.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: No, with respect, I am going to make some progress. I am happy to give way on points of clarity and will do so in due course, but I am going to proceed.

I was making a comment about Mr Dickson's indicating that it may well be difficult for some of the arm's-length bodies to engage with Ministers in the Department of Health or the Department of Education because of the position that we have taken. I am not accountable to arm's-length bodies; the arm's-length bodies are accountable to Ministers. My ultimate accountability is to the electorate and the people of Lagan Valley. As a Member of the Assembly, that is from whom I get my mandate and to whom I am accountable.

I want to make clear my position on some of the amendments. They have been tabled with sincerity by Members, who have spoken passionately about them. I do not seek to say that Members are anything other than sincere, but I think that the amendments are misplaced. That is my view, and I hope that people can disagree with me on that agreeably. The amendments that have been tabled are dangerous for teachers and children. I believe that most people will view with disbelief the notion that the minimum age of criminal responsibility would potentially be raised to 16 and that such a position is advocated not only by Mr Carroll, who tabled that amendment, but by someone who was appointed as the Children's Commissioner. That raises very serious questions. If I am certain of one thing, it is this: it may not be in 12 months or 12 years' time, but, if some of the amendments were to be passed, the day would come that the public would ask, "What on earth were the MLAs who voted in favour of those changes doing?".

What is the problem that the legislation seeks to address?

Why are we seeking to unpick arrangements that, in practice, result in a very small number of children being subject to criminal sanctions? I fully recognise the importance of children's rights and the need to support vulnerable young people, but this is not the way to do that. Why would we elevate the rights of children who are potentially responsible for criminal offences over those of the children who might be their victims? Why would we make young people who are immune from prosecution vulnerable to exploitation by older people? To say that I am not persuaded that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is the right course of action at this time is an understatement. It is a fundamental mistake.

It is not an academic issue. From an education perspective, schools across Northern Ireland are increasingly managing complex and serious incidents, including violence, sexualised behaviour, serious bullying and online harm. Those behaviours cause significant distress and trauma not only for victims but for the wider school community, including our education workforce. Schools have a fundamental responsibility to provide a safe and orderly environment for learning. Where serious incidents occur, pupils, staff and parents rightly expect that they will be dealt with in a meaningful and consistent way.

I am sorry; I indicated that I would give way to Miss McAllister.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member. You have gone back to the point about the incidents that take place in schools. No one is saying that they do not. However, might you be able to shed some light on the figures of 500 and 1,000? How many of those incidents took place in a special needs school or involved a young person with a special educational need or a learning disability? Is the Member aware that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been called to special schools in Northern Ireland to use force on children who have a learning disability or, perhaps, have severe autism? As a member of the Policing Board, I have seen some of the body-worn footage in which the police have been forced to use the powers that they have. Do you honestly believe that criminal intervention is the right way to deal with those children? Given that you have said that the system results in a very small number of young people being involved in the criminal justice process, you are making the point for us.

Mr Speaker: Before you respond, Mr Givan, you have been asked questions that have almost been asked of you as Education Minister. I remind you once again that you are speaking as a Back-Bench MLA.

Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked questions of the Member as a Member. However, if the Member got the statistics as the Minister of Education and is using them, that is up to him. At no point did I ask him a question as Minister of Education; I asked him as a Member. If he is entitled to use the statistics, I am entitled to ask him questions about them.

Mr Speaker: I am not criticising, Miss McAllister; I am pointing out to Mr Givan that he has chosen to speak from the Back Benches and therefore should not respond as if he were speaking as Education Minister.

Mr Givan: I am happy to respond. There is a contradiction where, on the one hand, I am criticised for drawing on my education experience but, on the other hand, am asked questions about that. I have no problem with that. I will be happy to provide some of those statistics to the Member who has raised them.

The broader point that the Member has made is whether I believe that the most effective way to tackle those behavioural issues in our schools is through the criminal justice system: no, I do not. Do I want those young people to get a criminal record? No, I do not. I believe that young people should get not only one, two or three chances but multiple chances to make sure that they do not become embroiled with a criminal record, because that can be harmful. However, we should, in cases of extremity and where there are repeat offences, have access to the criminal justice system. The Youth Justice Agency engages with some of those young people in a school setting, and it is effective in helping us. However, where an offence that is committed is so egregious, it is only right that, in those circumstances, the victim should have recourse to the criminal justice system. As a norm and a rule of thumb, I do not want our young people being criminalised, whether that is in schools or in wider society.

The broader point is that raising the age of criminal responsibility risks reducing the deterrent effect that is associated with the most harmful behaviours. While most children are not motivated by legal consequences, it is important that clear boundaries and accountability frameworks exist. That matters, particularly for a very small cohort of young people whose behaviour can have a disproportionate impact on others.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. He was here for a considerable part of last night's debate but perhaps not for the bit when I said that, were the amendment to be made, it would not be commenced until such time as we had put in place alternative accountability mechanisms for young people who engaged in worrying, distressing or harmful behaviour, so that we would have the right experts in place to deal with that potential offending behaviour and nip it in the bud while the young people were still young enough to change course.

The idea that there would be no accountability is one of the areas where there has been misinformation in the debate. There is no suggestion that there would be no accountability for a nine-year-old or eight-year-old child who, for example, stabs a teacher. We know that that happens, but we also know that a child of eight or nine cannot fully understand the consequences of their actions. The amendment is about extending those accountability mechanisms to a slightly older cohort who are mainly engaged in low-level offending. I hope that, if the amendment were to be made, we would work together to find those accountability mechanisms and make them work.

Mr Givan: My officials engaged with the Minister's Department while the amendments were being tabled, and they did so to identify what the alternative would be. The point was relayed to my officials that they would work on some of the frameworks. That will not change my position. The Alliance Party is right that the DUP's position on the matter is clear. We have adopted that position in the Executive and will adopt it in the next mandate as well. We will not change our position on the age being 10. However, as I said previously, it was premature to have moved an amendment without having that process developed and ready to be implemented. That might have been a reason for others to vote against it, but my position would not have changed.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: The reason is simple and, again, was set out in yesterday's debate. The Member is well aware from his other role of the constraints within which we operate in the Department of Justice. I could not afford to send my officials off to come up with a system that would have required a multi-agency approach, drawing in officials from all other Departments, particularly Health, on the off chance that the amendment would be made.

One of the reasons why we had the conversation that we had in preparation for the amendment was to recognise that it would not be commenced. For that very reason, there is no commencement date against the amendments that should, I will suggest, be supported. I cannot send my officials to do work that may prove to be nugatory. It is that simple. It is not that there is no intent to do it or that we would not do it before commencement; it is simply that, if, as has happened, the amendment were shot down in flames, what would have been the point of expending money that I do not have on doing something that could not be delivered?

Mr Givan: I have made the point about the prematurity of legislating without having alternatives in place. The Minister has made her point about not making unnecessary preparation for something that may not materialise. I understand that. However, if we were to take the provision forward, it would have been better to do so through primary legislation, albeit the Minister would not have been able to do that because, as she rightly said, we did not support it at the Executive. An amendment on something as significant as this is not the way to do it. Removing too early the backstop of a minimum age of 10 risks sending an unintended signal that there are limited consequences for serious wrongdoing. In practical terms, it has a direct implication for what happens in our schools. Without access to the existing framework of policing and youth justice, schools may be left to manage serious incidents internally. Unfortunately, that includes assaults, threats and other harmful behaviour, which would place a considerable burden on teachers and school leaders who are neither trained nor resourced to operate as a substitute for the justice system.

I caution Members: it is not for us here in the comfort of the Assembly Chamber to hand down what many regard as idealistic policies that would result in the consequences of the amendments that are proposed. Teachers and other children and their rights are most important to me. The amendments would also limit the range of responses available. While suspension or expulsion are sometimes necessary, they do not address the root causes of behaviour, and nor do they reliably prevent recurrence. Indeed, increased reliance on exclusion risks displacing the problem, placing vulnerable young people outside the protective structure of school and increasing the likelihood of further harm in the community.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: I will continue making progress. If I were to give way to the Member, she would continue to embarrass herself. I will save her from that behaviour. I do not want the Member to be a repeat offender when it comes to what she has contributed to the debate.

There are also important considerations around safety and confidence. If serious behaviour were not seen to be met with appropriate consequence and intervention, that could erode trust. Victims may feel unsupported; staff may feel exposed; and parents may question whether their children are safe. Those perceptions matter. They impact on attendance, well-being and educational outcomes.

I accept that the current system is not perfect, but it enables schools to draw on vital multi-agency support. Engagement with the PSNI and the Youth Justice Agency is not simply about accountability; it provides structured intervention, risk assessment, support for victims and a means of reducing reoffending. Schools also benefit from wider safeguarding and youth justice partnerships that assist in managing risk and addressing harmful behaviour in a coordinated way. Any proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility must therefore demonstrate clearly how those important functions would continue to be delivered and must show how victims would be protected, how harmful behaviour would be addressed effectively and how schools would be supported to maintain safe environments.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the Member giving way. One of the ways in which we could do that would be to look at the cohort below the current minimum age of criminal responsibility. As I have said, there are multi-agency response teams in place where the offending is serious. Where it is an individual incident, social services become involved, parents become engaged, and additional support will be provided, depending, obviously, on the scale of the offending. Models of that are in operation in Northern Ireland at the moment for younger children. We would need to ensure that, as you get to older children, there is more accountability, more opportunity for reparations to those whom they have hurt and more opportunity for them to take responsibility for their actions. There are models available; we are not talking in a vacuum.

There are also models available across Europe for how we do that. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we need only to go as far as Scotland or across the border into the South to see what can happen for those who fall under a raised age of criminal responsibility, as both have moved to 12.

Mr Givan: Of course, the younger you go, the fewer incidents there are. The numbers are relatively low, but that is not a reason to change the law on the age of criminal responsibility. Each year, around 50 children up to the age of 12 are identified in our schools by way of intervention. That number rises to 700 children per annum up to the age of 14. Obviously, the numbers for eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds are significantly lower. Given how small those numbers are, I would not want to remove the access to youth justice services or the PSNI in supporting resolutions to such issues.

If we do not have robust alternative arrangements, raising the age would risk creating uncertainty for schools, families and victims about how serious incidents would be managed. It risks shifting responsibility without providing the necessary tools and placing additional pressure on an already stretched education system. We also need to be alert to the risk of inconsistency. Those organisations bring their expertise and apply it in a uniform fashion. In the absence of that, without a clear, shared framework, there could be inconsistency of practice in how we deal with challenging behaviour in school settings.

It is not just about whether a child can be held criminally responsible. The focus must be on ensuring that harmful behaviour is identified early, that effective interventions are in place, that victims receive appropriate support and that schools have confidence in accessing the multi-agency assistance that they need.

I fully accept that many young people who display harmful behaviour require support, not punishment alone. Support and accountability are not mutually exclusive, however. They are most effective when delivered together in a clear and structured system, so early intervention must go hand in hand with mechanisms to ensure accountability, risk management and victim protection. Before any change to the minimum age is even contemplated, there must be confidence that the alternative arrangements to be put in place are legally robust, properly resourced and capable of responding effectively to serious incidents that affect pupils, school staff and the wider community. Those include access to mental health services, specialist behavioural support and strengthened safeguarding systems. Our priorities should be to strengthen prevention, invest in early intervention, enhance safeguarding and ensure that schools are fully supported to manage complex and serious behaviour.

I therefore urge the Assembly to reflect carefully on the process by which the issue is being considered. In my view, making those changes through amendments to the Justice Bill is not the right way in which to make them. Given the significance and complexity of their potential impacts, it is essential that any such proposals be subject to a fuller and proper level of scrutiny rather than be dealt with through amendments. Later, I will —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way on that specific point?

Mr Givan: Yes, of course.

Mrs Long: The Member and I have agreed almost too much this afternoon. We will have to address that at another time. On the failure to address the issue in a useful way, will the Member agree that, instead of having shot down the proposal in flames, if we had, for example, discussed Paul Frew's amendment to an amendment as a stand-alone amendment, a way forward could have been found? Instead, the DUP, as always, exercises its veto power, as it is intending to do through the petitions of concern. It should be engaging on the substance of the issue to provide reassurance. We, in fairness, have done that throughout the passage of the Bill. If that had not been closed at the Executive but a pin had been put in it to say, "Let's discuss it", we would potentially have got to a point at which everyone in the Chamber, or at least everyone who is in the Chamber at the moment, might have been able to find a point of agreement.

Mr Givan: Mr Frew can speak for himself. I am not so sure that the implication that Mr Frew, by way of his amendments, was trying to be helpful is accurate. He tabled amendments to amendments, and they were designed to try to prevent any change to the minimum age.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: I am happy to give way to Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: For fear of my being lumped in with the Alliance Party, I need to clarify my position. The amendments that were tabled on behalf of the party were to try to rescue the situation from the very dangerous position in which we would have been. Of course, this party's position is that we felt that raising the age would be too dangerous a step to take. That is why the petitions of concern were submitted. I make this point to the Members, who are both Ministers. The Minister of Justice talked about her framework, on which we did not really get any detail yesterday. That work can now continue among all the Departments and all the Ministers to ensure that, going forward, young people are treated with the most sensitivity that they can possibly be treated with, with accountability alongside that. When that work is completed, that is when we can return to the decision on the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Mr Givan: I thank Mr Frew for his intervention.

Mrs Long: Will the Member take one more?

Mr Givan: Let me respond to my colleague.

He is right to highlight the issue about the framework. Even if the framework were to be developed, broader society and certainly our schools would need to be confident that it was robust, that it could be effective and that it would be a replacement that was a credible alternative before the Youth Justice Agency or the PSNI would be withdrawn from getting involved in serious incidents, which, regrettably, do take place in our schools. It is one thing to have a framework, but it is another thing for the sector to have confidence that it represents a better approach. The framework would need to be tested long before we would think about removing what I have called the backstop for dealing with serious offences that occur.

My party will take, first and foremost, a victim-centred approach to this. That will be the default position. When an incident happens, what are the rights of the victim? That takes precedence over any rights of the perpetrator. That is why, in extremis, we want to retain the age at 10. That is why we did not have support for this at the Executive. Our Ministers were able to use our position. We were not going to support it. That is why we sought to use whatever mechanism was available to us to protect against the change to the law.

Strand one of the Belfast Agreement refers to safeguards. The paragraph on safeguards talks about the petition of concern. It does not prescribe the circumstances in which the petition of concern is constrained. It says that, as a safeguard, a cross-community vote can be applied to "key decisions" through a petition of concern. That is the test, when it comes to applying the petition of concern.

My party put the petition of concern in the Business Office well over a week ago. It was out there, publicly, and we said that that was what we were doing. We appealed to other Members to join us. The TUV joined us — I appreciated that. We continued to call for others to join us. That was well known and, largely, unremarked upon by anybody else in the Chamber, in the hope that there would not be sufficient signatures. Then Mr Chambers and others joined us, and we got the 30 signatures. That is when we got the response that we heard last night. That response was more indicative of an attitude of how people want to have majority rule and not seek the consensus that the Belfast Agreement sought to create within the Executive and Assembly. We ought to strive towards getting consensus on a cross-community basis. It may not always be possible for us to achieve that. We have the mandatory coalition, which is difficult to navigate, and we have an Assembly with many political opinions, but we should seek to get consensus. At times, I have had to water down my ambition in legislation in an attempt to get consensus. I have had to do it: I have had to compromise. Those who know me know that I do not like to compromise, but there are times when we have to do it. There have been times when I have had to do it at the insistence of the Alliance Party and others.

We put down that petition of concern. I appreciate that others disagree, but, in our view, that was the right thing to do. If people are now saying, "Never more can we ever seek cross-community votes in the Assembly", let them bring forward legislation where the default for passing the Budget, for example, which affects all our citizens equally, is an automatic cross-community vote and not one triggered by a petition of concern. However, that is not the basis of the Belfast Agreement. It is about consensus politics.

When others were not in the ascendancy and did not have a majority, all those safeguards were core tenets of the Belfast Agreement that were never to be given up. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, they feel that all those safeguards ought to be disbanded. We are not going to make progress by seeking to exclude people, particularly those on these Benches from the unionist community.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member has been around these institutions for a long time. He knows full well that, in 1999, the late Seán Neeson and Stephen Farry penned a lengthy article about the problems with the Good Friday Agreement and foresaw much of the difficulty that we are facing now. Alliance's consistent position has been that the mutual vetoes — the petitions of concern — were open to abuse because their use had not been properly circumscribed in the legislation. At the beginning, there was an understanding between the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP on when they would be used, but there was no limitation on them in legislation. We said that they needed to be reformed and, preferably, withdrawn. Up until 2022, the Member's party had reform of the institutions in its manifesto, so let us not play silly games. If we really want to get past this, let us recognise that our position has not shifted because of the shift in the balance of power in the Assembly. Our position has been consistent since 1998.

Mr Givan: Its application in the context of these amendments is in line with New Decade, New Approach. So, we did support the reform of the petition of concern. [Inaudible.]

Mr Givan: Listen, it was a reform that we agreed with. It may not have been our starting point either. We had to compromise, and we restored the institutions on the basis of New Decade, New Approach. Under that, we know the rules: two or more parties have to sign it, not just one; it cannot be used to block legislation at Second Stage; when it is used, there are certain conditions, such as a 14-day window —.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When my party colleague Nuala McAllister was speaking earlier, the Speaker told her that she was not to discuss the petition of concern at length, yet we have just had several minutes of —.

Mr Buckley: From your Minister.

Ms Bradshaw: Excuse me. I have not finished.

There has been enough exchange on the matter. We have spent many days discussing the amendments to the Justice Bill. We, in the Alliance Party, want to move on and make progress. We are going round in circles on that issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That is a fair point, Ms Bradshaw. As a point of order, it will be looked at by the Speaker's Office, of course. I know something of the comments that were made earlier, and there was clear guidance in them. I request that we move on from a detailed discussion about the petition of concern and to the substance of the Justice Bill.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have addressed those points. I sought to facilitate as many Members as I possibly could, including the Minister of Justice. If I prolonged my contribution to the dissatisfaction of the Member for South Belfast, I can only apologise for the Minister's interventions and my indulgence of them. I have made the points about our position. I accept that the position of some is sincere, but it is sincerely wrong. For others, there is no sincerity in their position on changing the age of criminal responsibility. Our party will continue to hold that line, not just in this mandate but in future mandates.

Mr McNulty: I rise to speak on the amendment regarding the age of criminal responsibility, which the SDLP has co-sponsored. Some Members have used the racist riots of the past week to cast the amendment in a bad light, appropriating the experiences of children — children who, quite obviously, were exploited by paramilitary groups, racist extremists and violent rioters — to justify criminalising them. That narrative must be strongly refuted to reassure people of the positive impacts that the amendment would bring.

Children who come into contact with the justice system at a young age are often among the most vulnerable in society, experiencing poverty, trauma, exploitation and unmet need. Children in those circumstances should not be criminalised. Criminalisation can bring long-term consequences for those children and their families such as a decreased likelihood of their completing school and obtaining educational qualifications. It can also have downstream implications for future job prospects. Children's involvement with the criminal justice system has been linked to an increase in the likelihood of their offending. Why would anyone support that?

The proposed amendment would raise the general age of criminal responsibility to 14, which is the recommendation of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, as well as being the European and world average age. That best practice is shaped by advances in understanding brain development: in particular, that children's frontal lobes will contribute to reasoning, problem solving, prioritisation, consequential thinking and regulation of emotions that are not fully developed. Children have less ability to adequately and appropriately participate in criminal justice proceedings. They are often more inclined to make false confessions. They have limited capacity to understand legal processes and court proceedings as well as the significance of questions asked and answers given, which decreases the likelihood of determining the truth and achieving justice.

The amendment would retain limited exceptions, in the case of children aged 12 or 13, for the most serious offences, including murder, manslaughter and rape. That represents a balanced approach that reflects children's rights and the need for accountability in the gravest cases.

It is important to highlight the fact that an absence of criminal responsibility is not a complete absence of consequence or intervention. Ensuring that children receive the necessary supports, including the expertise of social workers and therapists, educational supports, anti-poverty supports and other interventions is key. Resources must be directed towards the evidence-based methods of early intervention, diversion and support that genuinely reduce future harm, victimisation and criminalisation. The SDLP stands by the amendment as being the right thing to do to support our children. We should surely all endeavour to catch up with the rest of the world through this common-sense legislation that recognises the simple matter that children do not have the mental capacity to be held criminally responsible.

Mr Gaston: The spectacle that we all witnessed last night from members of the liberal elite in the Chamber was nothing other than self-combustion. Even by their own standards, it was a spectacle for all to behold. Time and again, the mask of the self-righteous MLAs slipped as, between their sniping and sneering remarks, they struggled to hold it together.

As a result of not getting to move amendment No 82, Sinn Féin Members were visibly irate. They even walked out of the Chamber, only to return a short time later, as they realised that the debate was going on without them. Ms Sheerin accused those who signed the petitions of concern of blocking the rights of children. At what point, Ms Sheerin, does your party ever consider the rights of the victim? It is not surprising that it does not do so, as Sinn Féin is more akin to a victim-maker than to a supporter of the rights of a victim.

How did the SDLP react to amendment No 82 not being moved? Well, going by its Members' contributions, one could be forgiven for forgetting that the petition of concern was the birth child of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists as part of the Good Friday Agreement.

Alliance Members were frustrated at not being able to move amendment Nos 79, 80 and 82. They did not get what they wanted, so they tried to lift the ball and walk off the pitch. Apparently, tabling a petition of concern amounts, in their words, to a denial of democracy; yet, last night, Alliance was so keen to railroad through its will that its Chief Whip proposed closing the debate on the group 6 amendments without hearing from the parties in this corner of the Chamber. I am well used to Ms Bradshaw not wanting to give me my fair say on a Wednesday afternoon, but it is a bit rich of the Alliance Party to complain that its mandate is being disrespected when it sought to prevent some Members from taking part in the debate, ensuring that they would not say anything at all.

I did a wee bit more reading this morning to see what the nationalist and republican parties and the Alliance Party had to say about the issue in their manifestos. I discovered that two parties — the SDLP and Sinn Féin — had nothing to say about raising the age of criminal responsibility. Where is the mandate from the people that they talk about, given that it was not even worth putting in their manifestos? We had Ms Ferguson saying that it disrespected her party's mandate. Well, it was not a big enough issue to include in your manifesto. The truth is that neither party has a mandate from anyone to change the law in such a significant, profound and controversial way —

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — as that which they sought.

I am happy to give way to Ms Sheerin.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you for eventually giving way to me. I want to make a couple of points in response to what you have just contributed. First, on victims, are you aware that the Victims' Commissioner supports the change? Secondly, are you aware that a recommendation in 2011, following public consultation, showed that there was public support for the change? Thirdly, do you feel that it is very important that we have a debate in which you are heard, given that you have been instrumental in blocking the democratic result of the debate, as it would be if the debate were to be properly heard? What is the point in debating something that you have already blocked? You have already been a pawn for the DUP and allowed it to be blocked.

Mr Gaston: Ms Sheerin, I can certainly assure you that I am no pawn for the DUP. I signed the petition of concern out of conviction and principle as soon as I knew that it had been laid because — you know what? — it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do because I could not trust Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance or, of course, Mr Carroll from People Before Profit to make a decision that would safeguard my children and their future. I will take no lectures from Sinn Féin — especially not from you, Ms Sheerin — [Interruption.]

It is good to hear that you now have an interest in victims, given that, for many years, those in your party did not. They were the victim-makers. Maybe that is a part of history that you do not want brought up. You do not want to talk about that bit of history, but, while I am in the Chamber, I will make sure that you and the rest of your party are never allowed to forget it.

I will move on to the Alliance Party. I give the Alliance Party credit for at least mentioning this in its manifesto. Buried away on page 23 of its 94-page manifesto is the sentence:

The party gave that a lot of thought: it put in one line about it.

Continuing that train of thought, I want Members to cast their minds back to the Second Stage debate on the Bill, which was on 1 October 2024. During my contribution, I cautioned Members against any attempt to amend the Bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility, reminding the House of:

True to form —

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Gaston: — an Alliance MLA got to their feet to make a point of order. I will take an intervention in a minute. That MLA stated:

The party of the Member who said that that was not a principle of the Bill has tabled an amendment on it. I say that so that we can keep up and to ensure that everybody is aware of the duplicity of the Alliance Party, because this is what it intended to do all along: it intended to have a Bill that would be wide enough to allow it to farm out to other MLAs in the party things that it could not get through the Executive, so that they could bring those things through and do the Minister's bidding.

I am happy to give way to my North Antrim colleague.

Ms Mulholland: There are a couple of points to address there. The most recent one is this: I do nobody's bidding. I am not doing the Justice Minister's bidding. I came into the House as a former youth worker with a long-held passion for this subject, as, I am sure, every single one of my colleagues and those who served on councils with me would attest to. I did not pluck this out of the air because the Justice Minister told me to. I take offence at that, Mr Gaston, because it implies that this is party political. For me, it is not party political; it is moral and a way to make society better. You may disagree with me, and that is fine, but I take offence at being told that I am just doing somebody's bidding.

Mr Gaston: I expected a prolonged intervention and expected her to say something else, but Sian has taken great exception.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Ms Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. I stood up at the same time as Sian.

On the Justice Bill, I appreciate that you have been co-opted only in the past couple of years, but, in every mandate — the Justice Minister can come in if she wants — there will be a miscellaneous provisions Bill in which a lot of tidying up and progressions will come forward. I know that you have not been here for a long time, Mr Gaston, but it is not unusual for that to happen in each mandate.

Mr Gaston: And there we have the condescending, sneering remarks from the Chair of the Executive Office Committee. That is a case in point.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Ms Bradshaw: Mr Gaston, I was not sneering. You were sneering at the Alliance Party and at the procedures in the Chamber, and I was simply correcting you.

Mr Gaston: I will take that on board, Chairperson. That is me put in my place, if only it were as easy to do that. You will have found over the past two years that it is not just as simple to disregard what I have to say when I am given the Floor.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He is very generous in his interventions, particularly to the Chair of the Executive Office Committee, who has never been that generous in the past to facilitate him.

Perhaps some of the major difficulties that we face today have been caused by the Minister because she brought half a Bill. There is a book of amendments, and they are 10 times that of the Bill. Is that not one of the primary reasons for the Minister floundering in front of us today?

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member will be aware that there is an obligation on Members to correct the record when they speak in error. He has just said that the amendments to the Bill are 10 times the amount of the original Bill. That is factually incorrect. You can flick your papers all you want, but it does not change the fact that they are not 10 times the amount. In fairness, it also does not reflect the fact that his colleague brought quite a few of the amendments.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like clarity from the Chair on whether that was a point of order from the Justice Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley and Mrs Long, there is a pattern developing again where points of order are not strictly points of order, but Members who have questioned the validity of points of order have availed themselves of the opportunity to raise points of order that they know full well are not points of order. I am keeping all names out of it at this point, but, as I indicated a relatively short time ago, the Speaker gave some guidance earlier about the tone of debate, the nature of interventions and the necessity to stick to the debate on the Justice Bill. We have had a review of Committee processes, an analysis of manifestos, and a number of other points have been raised to set context, and there will be some latitude for that. Now, I expect all comments to be on the Bill and the amendments or for the Standing Order to which points of order relate to be specified. Otherwise, we will move on.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not have the Standing Orders in front of me, but I know from experience as a Minister that, if I misspeak in the House or provide false information, I am expected to return to the House and correct the record at the first opportunity. I raised my point of order to allow the Member for Upper Bann to correct the record in a contemporaneous fashion, not to disrupt the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, that point is noted, and you referred to a specific example. The Member involved can reflect on their comment, and they can withdraw it if they wish. Otherwise, the Speaker's Office will look at that as it does with all points of order raised.

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Justice Minister has just challenged the Chair's ruling, which was that she was to quote the exact Standing Order to which she was referring. She did not do so. Is that in order?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley, you have not given a quotation yourself. [Laughter.]

Here is what we are going to do. I have already commented on points of order that may not be points of order. I have clearly referenced earlier guidance, and, now, Mr Gaston will take us back to — [Interruption.]

Members, Mr Gaston will be heard, and he will take us back to the debate on the Justice Bill.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although I am in the Assembly only a short time, in my two years here, I certainly have not seen such a sheaf come in front of us.

Mr Buckley: Save the trees.

Mr Gaston: Indeed. I was going to make that point. For all the environmentalists who do not like to waste paper, I do not know how many pages the Marshalled List is, but it is a quare sheaf.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Mr Frew, the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Mr Frew: I hold my hand up to say that I took up many of those pages with my amendments. [Laughter.]

Mr Gaston: We have found something that we can agree on in the Chamber tonight. There are a lot of amendments, and the trees have been harvested in the name of the Member for North Antrim Paul Frew.

I will go back to my point. The spoiler alert is that the Alliance MLA who tried to shut down this line of debate at Second Stage by saying that the age of criminal responsibility would not form part of the Bill was Nuala McAllister, yet, 21 months later, here we are, debating a number of amendments on the age of criminal responsibility.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for reminding me, because I have no recollection of that. It was obviously correct at Second Stage, because no amendments had yet been tabled, so we were not talking about that issue. That is OK. I do not understand the point that the Member is trying to make. It does not further the debate or cement his side of the argument. If he wants to talk about the minimum age of criminal responsibility, he should do it now, because this is his opportunity.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely, and that is what I am entitled to do. I will take my time to go through where I firmly stand on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The reason, however, for bringing up that point is that I raised the age of criminal responsibility as a concern at Second Stage. The Member got to her feet and made a point of order that it should not be a concern, because it was not within the parameters of the Bill in front of us.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, I do not want an analysis of the stages of the Bill. Members know what the debate is on. The debate is on the Bill and on the amendments to it, not on the Bill's previous stages.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I go back to my remarks and concentrate on amendment Nos 79 and 80, which are in the name of Sian Mulholland of the Alliance Party.

The Alliance Party always likes to seek power at the ballot box, but, soon afterwards, it is captured by its own ideology, not insisted on by the public but cooked up at its party headquarters. On this issue, like many others, the Alliance Party is not even listening to what its voters want. We all know that, during the George Floyd unrest in the United States, two Alliance MLAs chose to make personal donations to the bail fund.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, this is the last time that I will ask you to refer to the amendments and the Bill. If you do not desist from deliberate distraction from the request that I have made, I will stop you. The next time will be to stop you. I hope that that is clear.

Mr Gaston: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will return to examining the amendments in front of us. I will concentrate solely on the group 6 amendments.

What are the group 6 amendments all about? They are not about whether children should be treated differently from adults, as they should be, nor are they about whether vulnerable children deserve support, intervention and rehabilitation, as they do. The focus of that group of amendments is much narrower and more practical. It is on whether Northern Ireland should remove the criminal justice system's ability to deal with the most serious offending committed by children aged between 10 and 12 years old. The answer to that question is a resounding no. That is why 30 MLAs signed the petitions of concern. They felt passionately that raising the age before you can commit an offence is reckless.

Northern Ireland does not operate a harsh and punitive regime for children. Our youth justice system is already built on diversion. It already recognises that children are different, and it already seeks rehabilitation rather than punishment. Youth conferences, diversionary disposals, supervision and support are already at the heart of the justice system.

The reality is that custody is rare. Prosecution is often the last resort. The current law already provides a balanced framework. What concerns me is that amendment No 82 tried to go further, beyond what is there and beyond recognising childhood. It tried to create a situation where a child aged 11 or under could not commit an offence and where those aged 12 and 13 could be prosecuted for only five offences: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration. That is all. Everything else falls outside criminal law.

I noticed that Mr McNulty tried to change the narrative, but the events of recent days should have caused Members to reflect. However, they did not. We should not pretend that children aged between 10 and 13 were not engaged in serious offences. If the House had been allowed to pass amendment No 82, it would have positively encouraged children between 10 and 13 to commit crimes when disorder breaks out without fear that the law would apply to them. Take the example of the bus that we saw burnt in east Belfast just a few days ago. Can the Members who wanted to support that amendment say for certain that no child under 13 was involved?

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Let us look at a real-life example that is well documented.

I am happy to give way to Ms Sheerin.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. You have raised something particularly upsetting, given how recent it was. Obviously, it is all speculation because we do not know the ages of anybody who was involved in that incident. It was upsetting for the intended victims and for everybody who witnessed it. However, I contend that that is a perfect example of why we need the legislation, because that resulted from racism, and there is no child with racism in their heart. That is learned behaviour. That is coercion. There is no 13-year-old who hates other people whose lives they do not understand. Somebody has made them do that, and we need to protect those young people.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely, and there is no problem going after those people, but, at the same time, if a child was engaged in that activity — I refer to Sam McBride's comments on 'The Nolan Show' earlier this week when he said that he saw very, very young people out on the streets on Thursday night when he was there. However, we cannot say, "Well, whatever crimes you have committed, that is OK. We can talk about it after". No, there has to be some responsibility for your actions. That has to be at the core. If there is a victim, making an excuse for somebody is wrong. If something had happened due to those attacks and a victim was left at the end of it, I am sorry, but I would not say to them, "But that person was too young". That person decided to engage in that activity.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. With that attitude in mind, does he agree that there should be some repercussions for those who should know better who inflamed the situation and used incendiary language to send people out on to the streets?

Mr Gaston: Ah, the mask has slipped. That is the narrative that the liberal elite is trying to focus on. There were no political comments that sent anybody on to the streets, and I want to be clear about that. [Inaudible.]

Mr Gaston: Mr Dickson, if you want to make an intervention, I am happy to take one.

Mr Dickson: Yes, please. On that line of thought, when it comes to putting thoughts of racism and other behaviour into young children's minds, does the Member agree that an obscene banner pinned to a children's playground by adults most definitely imprints such attitudes in children's minds and encourages them? The children are to be protected, and the adults are to be locked up.

Mr Gaston: We could play this game all night. Does that not mean that the same would apply when you name a play park, like the Raymond McCreesh play park, after a terrorist? On that basis —.

Mrs Long: Yes. We opposed it.

Mr Gaston: I am glad to hear that we are in agreement on that.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

Mr Dickson: Not only were we right to oppose that but my party made that a cause and called strongly on the local authority that refused to change the name to do so. This party has a long, proud record —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Dickson.

Mr Dickson: — of calling out sectarianism.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Dickson, we are some way off the amendments to the Justice Bill — some way off. Some responses to interventions were also off. Mr Gaston had not directly contravened my earlier request to stick to the terms of the debate, but interventions from around the House took him there.

We will now have a break. Members will know that the Business Committee agreed to have an evening suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 7.00 pm, when the debate will continue on this group. The next Member to be called will be Timothy Gaston.

Mr Gaston: As I get to the end of my speech, I want to get to a point where I am really focusing in on the primary reason why I decided to sign a petition of concern, based on what passing amendment No 82 would have unhinged and unleashed on Northern Ireland. I want to look at a real-life example that is well documented, so let us consider what happened in Edlington in 2009. Two brothers, aged 10 and 11, abducted two younger boys. They subjected them to a prolonged ordeal that involved beatings, strangulation, burning, humiliation and threats to kill. One of the victims suffered catastrophic injuries, and both were left for dead. Thankfully, they survived. However, had that happened in Northern Ireland and had amendment No 82 been in place at that stage, neither of those young boys would have faced any criminal sanction. That should be a lesson for us all to heed. The amendment that the liberal elite were all piling in behind and coming together on was, indeed, dangerous and would have led to more children being exploited due to there being no risk of prosecution until the age of 14, except for a cherry-picked list of offences based on public perception rather than sound evidence.

The 30 MLAs who triggered the petition of concern have done the majority in the Chamber a great service. The 30 MLAs have ensured that you will not have to look a mother, father, son or daughter in the eye when a crime has been committed and the guilty party cannot even be held responsible. My conscience is clear. The decision that we took was for the greater good, and what we did was the right course of action. I look forward, in the coming days and weeks, that when young people in our communities get caught up in trouble, they will see the same urgency, the same compassion and the same willingness to act from the bail bondsmen, Tennyson and Donnelly, when they put their hand in their pocket when the woke wagon rolls into town.

I finish with this. I make no bones about it at all. I signed the petition of concern on the basis that I did not trust Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance and People Before Profit to get this right. I could not trust them to put victims before their ideology, all under the guise of progressive politics, so I am glad that 30 MLAs took a stand to ensure that the amendment would not be railroaded through and that victims would be heard instead of the ideology that those who signed the amendment were wanting to push.

Mr Martin: I will speak on amendment Nos 79 and 82. There has been much talk about some of the backgrounds that we have been considering. For declaration purposes, I was a youth worker, like the Member for North Antrim, for about 20 years. I have also written a detailed report on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and I am more than familiar with ACEs and trauma-informed care. I am also more than aware that children with six or more ACEs are more likely to get involved with our criminal justice system.

As I approach the debate, my view on the matter, which, to be fair, has been referred to by a number of parties in the course of the debate, is that we should be intervening earlier and quicker, before those children actually perpetrate a crime. There should be more support in the early stages so that they do not find themselves in the situation of committing a crime at the age of 12 or 13.

It is clear from the debate that the amendments that we are discussing, which are supported by Alliance, Sinn Féin and the SDLP, want to raise the MACR to 14, with five exceptions, which have been discussed throughout the debate. I should say that I will not speak for 20 minutes or half an hour; my contribution will probably be about five minutes, and I want to try to be fairly concise. Those exceptions are murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration.

In the early stages of my contribution, I want to pick up on the debate that we had late last night, which was not very orderly, but a lot of those things were discussed. One such thing was why we were looking at these specific amendments and what was their backstory. I have worked with the Bill Office on a number of occasions and found its staff to be excellent at what they do. However, any MLA who has been here a while or worked in the Assembly will know that an MLA who takes an amendment to the Bill Office usually has some level of what we might call "policy intent", in that they want something to be done. They hand it over to the Bill Office, and, accordingly, it drafts an amendment that is in line with that policy intent. The Bill Office, however, can draft only on the basis of what it is given. I remain confused by the five exceptions on that list. It was not even clear in the rather fractious debate last night why those five offences had been picked. I am quite happy to take an intervention from any of those who tabled the amendment. For example, one of the crimes listed is murder, and a second is attempted murder. Why do we have rape on that list but not attempted rape? I remain confused about why the crimes on the list were picked.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Ms Mulholland: For the most part, the exceptions are based on those that exist in other regions of these islands, such as the Republic of Ireland and Scotland. The amendment was modelled on what works and what the law is in the other regions. That is where the exceptions came from.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for North Antrim, who tabled one of the amendments, for answering that. Although I am still unsure why those crimes were picked and why others did not make the list, I certainly accept her answer.

When we look at what is and is not on the list and how the exceptions apply, we see that the offences that a 13-year-old could no longer commit, because they would no longer be viewed as crimes, include very serious crimes. I have picked just three: grievous bodily harm with intent, attempted rape and arson endangering life. Were the Assembly to pass that amendment, a 13-year-old who perpetrated those crimes could not be prosecuted for them.

I considered it more. I thought about the circumstances and the impact that the amendment would have. In doing some research around the issue, one example that I considered was that, under the amendment, if a group of 13-year-old boys were to sexually assault, grope or fondle a 10-year-old girl, that would no longer be a prosecutable crime.

I agree with the comments of my colleague the Education Minister, who spoke as a Back-Bencher this evening. I fully accept that some of those who tabled the amendment believe that it is the right thing to do and that it will improve our criminal justice system and support young people. I accept that they are sincere in those beliefs. I believe that the amendment will not do that, and I hope that they will accept the sincerity with which I make that argument.

We have talked at some length about the perpetrators of those crimes.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the offence that he has just referred to is a problem throughout society, the root cause of which is misogyny? On that basis, would he accept that proper education and consistent relationships and sexuality education (RSE) training for all our young people would probably be more effective in reducing the frequency of those incidents than any proposed criminalisation of the offenders?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her question. We do have age-appropriate RSE in our schools. It is part of a review that the Education Minister is conducting to make RSE provision in our schools even better. I can speak only for myself and my family. We have two boys in our family, and, as we bring them up, we are, of course, teaching them to respect women and their young female school friends. I would hope that every father and mother in Northern Ireland is doing that. We are dealing with misogyny in our society. We have the ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) strategy, which we talk about a lot.

I will stay on that theme for a second. We have the EVAWG strategy, but, in the example that I have just provided to the House, that offence would no longer be prosecuted. I accept that those occurrences are very rare. I gave the Member an example last night. I fully accept that the age range of the case in Hampshire is above what we are talking about, and I was simply giving an example. Those crimes do happen, however. My reasoning around this is that, if I was either that 10-year-old girl or her parent, in the example that I just gave, there would be no recourse to justice.

The Member made a reasonable point. When we look at violence against women and girls, there absolutely needs to be better education, but we also need to address what happens when a young girl is subjected to something that is completely heinous.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: With respect, I will take an intervention from the Member for North Antrim first.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you. You talk about a young girl and her parents who want to seek justice. When I met representatives of Victim Support and, in particular, other women's organisations, the one thing that came out really clearly from them was that not all victims feel the same and that justice does not feel the same. They were saying that they had engaged with families who told them that they did not want a child to have their life changed irreparably because of an incident. Those families would rather know that no other family would have to go through what their daughters did.

Do you accept that justice does not always look the same? Whilst I understand where you are coming from when you say that the family wants to seek justice, what is that justice going to look like for every victim? For some, it is to get an apology, while for others it is to put somebody in a justice centre.

Mr Martin: I will take an intervention from the Member on the opposite Benches in a moment. I would like to answer the Member for North Antrim first. I absolutely accept that. The Member very kindly took an intervention from me last night, or certainly there was some chat about this in the Chamber. I completely accept that not all victims will have the same outlook, and certainly not in the context that she is or I am sharing. Victims will have different views and opinions about what they see as justice, as recompense or, for example, as rehabilitation and about how they see society being made safe. I accept that from the Member.

I say to her, however, that there will also be families who, in the situation that I have just described, will want what they might call justice. They will want the offence to be treated as a prosecutable crime. They are as entitled to that as another family who will say, "Actually, we want restorative justice for the perpetrator of this crime". My difficulty with the amendment is that it removes the possibility of the family whom I am talking about having recourse to justice. It would remove the vehicle that would allow them to have that.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will, but I will take an intervention from the Member across the way.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. There are a couple of parts to my intervention. First, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime supports the amendment, and she is well versed in the needs and experiences of victims here. Secondly, as a woman, I can say with absolute clarity, because every woman whom I have ever spoken to in my life has experienced some sort of sexual misconduct, assault or something that should not have happened to them, that I would like that not to happen to anyone else. When a young person who potentially does not fully understand the repercussions of their actions is criminalised, the likelihood of their being educated about the fact that what they did was wrong, and why it was wrong, is slim. The alternatives that would have been created, however, had we been able to legislate to raise MACR would have included that education, ultimately leading to fewer victims. I struggle, because, in his introduction, the Member told us that he worked with young people for 20 years. Why, then, go down a punitive route instead of an empathetic one?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her intervention and am happy to address it. She said that young people may or may not fully understand the implications of their actions. I was not going to make this point, but I will now. The Member's comment takes me back to the fact that amendments with exceptions were tabled. When I think about that, I wonder whether the signatories to those amendments are making a case that children of a certain age understand that some crimes are wrong and some are not. For example, are they saying that a child of 13 will understand that — these are the Member's exceptions — murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration are wrong but that, somehow, the same child of 13 will have a different understanding of attempted rape or grievous bodily harm?

To be honest, if the Member is making the case that it is about reason, Gillick competency or, as she just said, children fully understanding their actions, the very fact that she has put in five exceptions leaves her in muddy water. To be clear, I would not support that case. I will let the Member back in after the Member from the Alliance Party. Either children understand that difference at 13 or they do not. No child will say, "Do you know what? I know that manslaughter is bad, so I will not do it, but attacking someone with a claw hammer is OK". That does not make any sense. It is certainly not my understanding of childhood development. I hope that I have answered the Member's point.

The Member has waited patiently.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member. I do not remember the point on which I wanted to intervene. [Laughter.]

Mr Martin: I am sorry.

Miss McAllister: On the point that the Member has just made, there is a lot of evidence and research, particularly by academics in the field of psychiatry, on a child's understanding. The development of the brain is not black and white but fluid. There is therefore a possibility that children will understand right and wrong on different levels. In last night's debate on the amendment, there was acknowledgement around the Chamber that there was an element of political consensus to get something passed. We have to acknowledge that. It is acknowledged that there are complexities to the development of children's brains. What is the difference between a child of nine and 300 days and a child of 10 who carry out such crimes?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree with her that brains develop in different ways. I have some sympathy for other arguments that I have heard on the issue that look at Gillick competency.

The other thing about what we are talking about is that it is so arbitrary. I accept that children develop at different times and have different levels of understanding. That brings me back to the initial question: why are we then making exceptions? I get the point that some children might get it that stealing a mobile phone from a shop, for example, is different from attempted murder, but we are talking about crimes —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will, Minister.

— that are so serious and heinous that they are very similar to some of those that are listed in the exceptions.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the Member's giving way. First, the point has been made that it was partly to do with being able to get sufficient political consensus to make progress on the issue. Secondly, we have talked all along about there being a balance between wanting to protect younger children who may be drawn into offending behaviour and the rights of victims. When it comes to the most serious offences, the balance may fall in a different place. The list is a recognition of that simple fact. That is not to say that the things that fall immediately below it are trivial, or that the things on the list are the only serious crimes, but those are particularly heinous offences and are recognised as such even in sentencing. For that reason, there was logic in saying that those should be carved out. They are at the more extreme end of sentencing; for an adult, for example, they could carry a life sentence.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her intervention. I certainly understand the logic behind her arguments. I remain at a place where I think that there is a difference. I understand that, when we are drafting legislation, there has to be a level of definition when it comes to some crimes. However, I still do not accept the argument that a child of that age will realise that attempted murder is wrong but will have a different view of grievous bodily harm with intent.

I will move on. I did not want to speak for that long, but I will make a couple of other points. It is right and proper that, as we look at this issue — I will come on to victims in a minute — we look at the perpetrators of those crimes. We are talking about very serious crimes. I was very glad that my colleague Mr Givan stated clearly that some of the perpetrators of those crimes come from incredibly challenging backgrounds. I listened to the contribution from the Member for North Belfast while I was upstairs. I apologise for not being down here. We know that those from care-experienced backgrounds are much more likely to have an encounter with the justice system. When they commit those crimes, they need rehabilitation because, at some point, we want them to come out the other side of that justice system as reasonable young people who can integrate back into society. They will need support, including education, to integrate into society, but they will need that in a secure setting.

That brings me to another point. We talk a lot about criminalising those young people. That term has been used a lot in the debate. People beyond the Chamber may not understand the nuances of what we are talking about in here. When an 11-year-old or a 12-year-old commits a very serious offence — the number of such cases is incredibly small — they are not sent to Maghaberry or another prison. I will defer to the Minister of Justice if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, in a situation in which a serious crime has been committed, the young person is most likely to end up in the Woodlands facility in my constituency. That facility — I looked it up — offers secure accommodation, education and training, healthcare and mental health support, recreation and sports facilities, and programmes aimed at reducing reoffending and helping young people to return to the community.

If a young person commits a serious crime, that is where they go.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. He is correct, of course, that Woodlands is an excellent facility. I will certainly not contradict him on that point. Will he agree with me that a child of 10 or 11 being taken away from their family, their school and the environment in which they have grown up, rather than being supported in that environment to deal with their behaviours and, potentially, with the family issues that they might be struggling with, is still a traumatic incident for many of those young people? There is a concern that one of two things will happen to a young person in such circumstances. They will either be traumatised by the experience or, potentially worse, depending on their home circumstances and whether interventions are made there, they may prefer to be institutionalised than to live in a normal family. Would it not be a tragedy if, at 10 or 11, we institutionalised a child to the point that they would prefer to be in an institution rather than at home with their family because the right supports were not in place when they were not in Woodlands?

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her intervention, and I agree with her. We do not want to traumatise those young people any more than their background already has. However, I will make this point to her. As she well knows, Woodlands holds a very small number of young people — about 40 to 48 — and it is never full. However, the young people who are in Woodlands have committed some very serious crimes, some of which are very violent crimes. As such, whilst they are assured of getting the support that I mentioned earlier, they are also held in a secure facility. That is the right place for them, because they could be a danger to not only themselves but society. That is why we have that facility.

We have talked about the victims. As I listen to some of the speeches in the Chamber, I nearly think that some Members are saying that, when one of these crimes happens, everyone is a victim: the person who commits the crime and the person against whom the crime is committed. That cannot be the case. Let us go back to the original premise. We are talking about a child of 13, who could have been found to have committed a crime of grievous bodily harm, which is one of the most serious crimes on the statute book. If the age was raised, they would not be placed in a secure facility, even though that secure facility would do all that it could to support them. At present, at least they would be in that secure facility in the first place. When we look at this matter, we have to protect society and make sure that that young person does not recommit the crime because they are free on our streets.

I have listened very carefully to other arguments. We have talked a lot about human rights, progressiveness and a rights-based approach. In the middle of all of this, we need to centre ourselves on the victims of very serious crimes. The perpetrators should be in a secure facility, such as Woodlands. I do not know how you would start to explain to the parents of a young girl or a young boy who has been subjected to one of the crimes that is not on the excepted list that, a highly traumatic and extremely damaging event, there is no recourse for them; that no crime had actually been committed; and that, because the young person is 12 or 13, they can't commit a crime. The more I that thought about it, I thought about what my approach, as a father of three children, would be if one of my children were subjected to grievous bodily harm by a group of 13-year-old boys. As a father, I would struggle if a police officer came to my door and told me that one of my sons or my daughter had been subjected to a really violent attack and were in hospital, possibly fighting for their life, but that no prosecutable crime had been committed, because the assailants were 13. My son or daughter is in the Ulster Hospital, perhaps fighting for their life, and I have a policeman at my door telling me that no crime has been committed and that the young boys or girls responsible will be free. They may have some level of support, which I am not going to demean — there was a lot of that last night. They may get restorative justice, but my son or daughter is in the Ulster Hospital, and they have not committed a crime. I want the Members who sponsored that amendment to stand up — I am happy to give any one of them the Floor — and explain what they would say to the parents of that child in the Ulster Hospital when the policeman has explained to them that no crime has been committed and the perpetrators cannot be prosecuted. I do not have an answer to that, but I am more than happy to sit down if one of the proposers of the amendment wants to stand up and explain what they would do if they were the policeman at the door, and how they would explain to the parents what had happened and why those 13-year-old boys had committed no crime.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will.

Ms Sheerin: In fairness to the Member, it is not in his nature to talk in extremities, and he has not been doing so, but the argument that he is making is based on extreme cases. We know that law that is made on the basis of extreme cases is not good law. If the law covers only extreme cases but punishes all children, including vulnerable children in the process, it is terrible law. You asked what we would say to parents. We all deal with parents — with constituents — who are in horrible circumstances every day of the week, but we have a raft of evidence that tells us that this proposal would lead to less offending, which means that there would be fewer parents standing in the Ulster Hospital, or wherever else, with injured children. That is the reality. That is what I would say. We stand over the amendment. You have cynically blocked it, and you have not got the courage of your convictions in your argument. If you did, you would not have engaged the POC.

Mr Martin: I am not getting into the POC, because that is not what we are here to debate. I stand by my convictions and my signing the POC. If I read out that set of circumstances to my constituents, or if she took that example to her constituents —. I accept that there are not massive numbers of these things, but the law has to understand that such examples exist. We are not talking about hypotheticals here.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will in a second.

If we change the law, what I have just read out could happen in real life — it absolutely could — and would not just be a theoretical example.

What I say to the Member's other point is that pushing MACR to 14 is not the solution. The solution — I made the point at the start — is better and earlier intervention so that kids do not make those mistakes. If you look at the research — I am more than happy to provide the Member with some research around this — you see that, if you intervene earlier when children have multiple ACEs, they end up —. This is about hardwired brain development. Some Members have made the case — I heard one Member make it earlier — that a brain needs to be specially wired even to be able to commit some crimes, and that happens over time. Therefore, what we do is intervene earlier, faster and younger so that children, even when well below what MACR is now, get help, support and interventions so that they do not end up in those situations in the first place.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way, and I hope that he will indulge me for a minute.

Before I came into full-time politics, I ran a project in the Village area of South Belfast for disengaged young people. The Youth Justice Agency would come to us and ask, "Could you take such-and-such?" I would ask Graham — a lot of you will know Graham from TREE — about their backstory. Every one of them had a backstory: father in prison, mother had died etc etc. They all had a backstory. Had they received better intervention in the education system and not dropped out of school or received better social security support at a younger age, it could have been different, and you have made that argument. When those young boys got somebody like Graham, who is a saint and like a big father figure in their lives, they did not need to go through the youth justice system or the criminal justice system. They needed proper, timely intervention. Were it not for such organisations, we would see a lot more disengaged young people who would then go on to a life of crime.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member, and it might concern her that I am about to agree with her. That is what we need. I have stood in the Chamber and called for earlier, faster and more effective intervention. We know the cohorts that need that. I would love to see the Assembly move towards that, and, to be fair, I believe that the Justice Department has become trauma-informed. Is the Justice Minister going to nod at me? Yes, she is. OK.

We can identify those youngsters, and the Member makes a good point, especially about boys. Sixty per cent of boys who have fathers in prison are infinitely more likely to offend, so there are identifiable cohorts that we could put additional resources into and target with more support and interventions. We do not have to move MACR to do that.

Did anyone else want me to give way? I am closing down here. Yes, young lady.

Ms Sheerin: I do not appreciate being patronised, I have to say, and that was the second time.

Mr Martin: I appreciate that.

Ms Sheerin: That is just for the record.

You made a comment about providing us with expertise or advice. We are the outlier. MACR is lower here than in 75% of European states, and the world has not caved in in any of those places. We have advice going back as far as 2011 to increase the age of criminal responsibility, and we have advice from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which, I dare say, is more expert on children's rights than any of us in the Chamber.

I go back to the emotive argument that you are presenting about one hypothetical individual case and how you would feel as a parent. With all due respect, I would love to see the passion that you have put into that argument and the passion that you have all displayed in managing to barter with specific Members of the UUP to drive a petition of concern over the line engaged in early interventions for young people who need support and help, instead of dying in a ditch to make sure that they remain criminalised.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her intervention. I am aware of some of the MACRs around Europe. I looked up Switzerland, which is one of the most liberal and progressive countries in Europe. It has the same MACR as ours: 10.

The Member raised prevention, early intervention and ACEs. I can certainly provide her with my report, which is now a good eight years old. I made a raft of policy suggestions around those things before Northern Ireland was even talking about trauma-informed care and ACEs, when they were still within the ambit of the Scottish Government, who started talking about that in 2007. I am more than happy to provide her with the report and the policy recommendations that I made a long time ago.

I will stop there; I have spoken for more than long enough. I am content with the current position: a MACR of 10. I have outlined my arguments for that. I accept that there are Members who disagree. I am happy to continue the conversation offline and to do so respectfully. As I considered the issue — I considered it long and hard — I could not get past the fact that the victims of some crimes will, in some of the circumstances that we have debated, have no access to justice. Those crimes are being committed, albeit in low numbers. A Member said — I wrote it down — that we needed a victim-centred approach: I completely concur. That is why I have made my arguments and why I will not support the amendments.

Mr Beattie: The Member has been concluding for about 25 minutes.

Mr Martin: Have I really? That long?

Mr Beattie: It has been great.

The amendments in group 6 are on complex, nuanced issues. I have seen really good knowledge and understanding of the matter across the Chamber, along with lived experience. Members had other jobs prior to coming here, and they have brought their experience with them. That is why it is such a robust conversation: we all take a principled approach to this. I will be honest and say that I do not think that any Member's principles will be changed by any of the arguments; we need to put that point across.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Just one minute, if I may, Minister.

Ten is too young. I have believed that for a long time, not just since the debate started. When I became an MLA, I thought that 10 was too young. I do not have a degree; I do not have a thesis. I am standing in this corner of the Chamber partly because of my principles on the issue, and, therefore, I will approach it for myself and look at it in primary colours to get my point across.

I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: The Member said that nobody would change their mind as a result of the debate, but that is not true. There are elements of today's debate on which, as I said earlier, there would have been potential for compromise had the debate happened at the right time. Unfortunately, as with the petition of concern on this occasion, the use of the veto in the Executive took the matter off the table. Instead of trying to find consensus and being willing to move, which we would have been willing to do, others deny us the opportunity to do that not just in this mandate but, as has been said, in future mandates, even if all the other circumstances were to be in place.

Mr Beattie: In fairness, Minister, what I am saying is that this is what I think. I think that, after all the screaming and shouting, few Members will change their minds and say, "Actually, 14's a bad idea; we're going to stick with 10". That is the point that I was trying to make, probably clumsily — I apologise.

I wish that we were not approaching this substantial subject through a series of amendments.

The matter is so serious and fundamental to how justice is provided in Northern Ireland that I believe that it deserves a stand-alone Bill, much like the one in Scotland. You can stick your hands over your face, Minister. I will come to you in a minute, if I may. Scotland introduced the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Bill, which is now the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019. It allows for scrutiny. Having a stand-alone Bill would have given the Assembly the ability to scrutinise fully the issue of the minimum age of criminal responsibility, including the intended and unintended consequences, and allowed the public to have confidence in the decisions that we made on the issue.

I absolutely accept what the Minister said earlier, which is that she would not have been able to get such a Bill out of the Executive. That is the sentence that you would have heard from me, Minister, had you waited a minute. I absolutely accept that that is the case, and I think that we all do. Do I think that that means that the issue has gone away? No, it has not gone away, because the reality is that someone will probably introduce a stand-alone private Member's Bill in the next mandate. That is where, in all likelihood, we will go. That is probably not a bad thing, because it would lead to exactly what I said needs to happen: it would get the discussions going so that we might look at the intended and unintended consequences.

I will speak to some of the amendments. I will try to be really brief. I simply cannot support amendment Nos 79 and 81, for two reasons. I believe that 10 is too young, but I do not accept raising it to 14, because I think that that is too old. I will explain why in a minute, but, to my mind, amendment Nos 79 and 81 do not really set MACR. Rather, they remove it. Amendment No 79 states:

Amendment No 81 states:

Charging someone is the outcome, however. A child of any age would therefore be able to be arrested, investigated and go through the whole criminal justice system but not be charged. For me, the two amendments do not set out what we want. I know without a shadow of a doubt what the policy intent is, but I do not think that those amendments achieve that, because a child of any age could be given an informal warning — a community resolution notice — which would go on their record and be discoverable by the police. I therefore cannot support amendment Nos 79 and 81, with the substantive reason being, of course, that I do not support the minimum age of criminal responsibility's being 14. That is OK. I support its being 12. We can disagree, but we can do so agreeably.

Amendment No 82 tries to overcome that issue by being explicit in setting MACR, stating:

It goes on to state, however, that children aged 12 or 13 can be guilty of an offence and then gives a closed list. That closed list of offences is the problem that has been raised time and time again:

In essence, however, that amendment would raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14, apart from in the case of the offences in that closed list. It has been said many times, and I will not repeat what has been said, but the closed list does not make sense to me either. For some people, raising the age to 14 while having the closed list meets the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child's minimum call for MACR of 14. The UN also says, however, that that minimum age of 14 should come with "no exemptions". That is what it says, so we cannot say that we are trying to match what the UN is telling us to do by having the minimum age be 14 but disregarding its saying that there should be no exemptions at 14.

Amendment No 82 tries to ride two horses but falls off both. I do not believe that the Members who tabled it included that closed list just to stop outrage. Rather, I think that they were reacting to what the Public Prosecution Service said in its comments in the 2021 consultation, which is:

I think that is why they are there. I do not think that it is a cynical attempt to assuage anger, but it does not what we want it to meet. To be clear — people have given examples — someone who is 13 and steals a car, drives it recklessly, hits another car, killing the occupants, or hits a child at the side of the road will not have committed a crime because it would be death by dangerous driving and that is not on the list. That is where the concerns are.

We are not talking about children's behaviours here; we are talking about serious crimes. That is the premise behind what is being said. Likewise, people have said the same about upskirting, downblousing and a range of sexual offences and vehicle offences. None would be viewed as a crime.

Of course, 10- and 11-year-olds could also be involved in those offences, but it is less likely, and it could be dealt with through a more flexible youth justice system. Let me give you an example if I can. The number of files received by the Public Prosecution Service for 11-year-olds involved in sexual offences between 2022 and 2025 sits at 43. The number of files received by the PPS for 12-year-olds involved in the same range of offences is 123. Therefore, you can see that there is a real jump from the age of 11 to 12. The number of files received for driving offences for 10-year-olds sits at three; for 11-year-olds, it is three; for 12-year-olds, it is 13; and, for 13-year-olds, it is 28. Those files were received by the Public Prosecution Service.

The latest figures for 2024-25 show that the Public Prosecution Service received in the region of 500 files involving children between the ages of 10 and 14.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Yes.

Mrs Long: Can the Member also give us the figures for how many of those were prosecuted in court?

Mr Beattie: Yes. What age would you like?

Mrs Long: Preferably all of them, if the Member has the figures to hand.

Mr Beattie: I will not go through them all, but I will pick one age group. Let us go for 12-year-olds: indictable prosecution, two; summary prosecution, 51; cautions, 14; informed warnings, 22; youth conferences, 34; and no prosecution, 71. The information is there. I am not trying to be smart in any shape or form. Please do not think that I am, but the information is there. The point that I am trying to make is that there is a real jump between the ages of 11 and 12. That is where my concern lies.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Beattie: Yes, of course.

Ms Ferguson: You are talking about the jump. We have discussed this over these two days and the neuroscience around it. If a child is making a transition from primary school to secondary school or going through a change in hormones or experiencing trauma, poverty and everything else, the longer the issues that the child is experiencing remain unaddressed, the higher the chance that they will be involved. As time goes on, there will continue to be more children.

Mr Beattie: I know your background, and I cannot disagree with a lot of what you have said. However, the reality is that we still need to catch those people reasonably early. The point that I am making is that 10- and 11-year-olds are less likely to get involved in serious crime, but, from the age of 12 upwards — I will talk about that in a minute — there is more of a chance. That is where we need to have an intervention. If we have not intervened early, we may lose those people in the system.

Let me crack on and try to explain the point I am making. I am concerned about the size of the cohort that may no longer be engaged until it is possibly too late. We already ensure that incarceration of children between the ages of 10 and 18 is a last resort. The Woodlands facility, which was mentioned earlier by Peter Martin, has room for 48 offenders, but it regularly sits with about 10 or 12 between the ages of 10 and 18. That is a real positive.

Let me give you another example. People have asked what other countries are doing. Let me give you one that is quite close to ours. Latvia has a similar population size to Northern Ireland and a MACR set at 14; its incarceration level for 14- to 18-year-olds sits at three times that of Northern Ireland.

There is no one solution that fits all. The figure in Latvia is not three times the number here every year, but it is regularly three times the number here. Latvia has a principle of diversion, which brings me to the amendment that I have tabled.

Amendment No 86 aims to deal with the extremely low age of criminal responsibility — I have said already that 10 is too young — by setting a new minimum age of 12, while ensuring that there are measures in place to deal with serious offending by 10- and 11-year-olds. I do not have a closed list; it is just serious offences.

My amendment has four parts. The first part is clear:

That raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. It is not what some people, who want it to be 14, want; it is not what others, who want it to stay at 10, want; but I believe that 12 is right. Why do I presume that a child can commit a criminal offence at 12 years of age? We already know that 10- and 11-year-olds can commit offences, but there is a jump in the seriousness and number of offences committed by children when they get to the age of 12. Some children's behaviour becomes less manageable at that age: they have left primary school; their friend groups have become less filtered; they are more susceptible to external influences from other children and adults; and they may well have their first phone, which allows them to reach into the darkest recesses of the internet. There is a real difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. We know that many children as young as 12 are already watching extreme pornography and, in some cases, acting it out. There was one case of non-fatal strangulation.

I do not want to criminalise children — I really do not — and I do not think that our system does so. However, while we are mindful of helping the child, we must also be mindful of the victim. We have to help the victim. For me, the sharp edge between 11 and 12 is the cliff edge. Statistics show that the crime rate doubles and triples between the ages of 11 and 12. Of course, I know that all ages are arbitrary: 16, 14, 12, 10. Had James Bulger been murdered by two nine-year-olds, we would probably be having a discussion about the minimum age of criminal responsibility being nine, such was the anger in 1993 when that horrendous crime took place. All the ages are arbitrary, and we need to deal with that.

The second part of my amendment makes it clear that the police must have the power to arrest and investigate children who are 10 or 11 years of age. The police have to do that for a number of reasons. The first reason is to make sure that it was that child who committed the serious offence. If the child is not arrested or investigated and their necessary biometrics are not taken, the police are not able to prove that that child committed the crime, and, likewise, they cannot prove that that child did not do the crime. There will be adults who will tell children to take responsibility for their actions, knowing that they are below the minimum age of criminal responsibility. There is an important principle here that the police need the freedom to investigate. If that means making an arrest, the police should arrest. If it means taking biometrics, the police have to take the biometrics. If an 11-year-old burns down a derelict house, the police investigating the arson may arrest a child. In the course of that investigation, it may be proven that it was not that child but somebody else; or it may be proven that it was that child, who is below the age of criminal responsibility, and the case will go into a different process. The investigatory part of my amendment is incredibly important.

The third part of my amendment gives the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to look at a crime committed by a child of 10 or 11 years of age and decide whether that crime should be prosecuted. As you can see, I am not giving a closed list of offences, but I am giving the director more latitude when it comes to the seriousness of the offence. Take death by dangerous driving as an example.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Of course.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member accept the criticism that, by giving the DPP that latitude, it does not give clarity and does not give a concise picture of what to expect? That was a lot of the criticism when we were looking at your amendment. With respect, the challenges were that it would be very difficult, be quite unworkable, lead to expense and be a bit unwieldy for the legal system to manage.

Mr Beattie: I kind of accept that in part, but remember what we are talking about here. We are talking about a very small number of cases, not a raft of cases. We are not talking about thousands of cases. It could be something as simple as the police doing an investigation and sending a no-file prosecution file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he then accepts it and that is where it goes. We are not talking just about bad behaviour; we are talking about the most serious offences. That is why I tried to give the example of death by dangerous driving, which would be one of those offences. The Director of Public Prosecutions would look at the seriousness of the offence — death by dangerous driving, risk of harm to the public, serial arson, assault, sexual behaviour that is a danger to the public — and he would also look at the best interests of the child, because we have not got away from diversionary measures here. Ultimately, that is what we are looking to do. We are not about criminalising more children. This is about ensuring that they get the support that they require and that we also support the victims of crime.

The last part of my amendment simply ensures that all interested parties in the youth justice system, including the PSNI, the PPS and the Youth Justice Agency, are prepared for the change from 10 to 12. I set a figure of two years — I think that you raised that, Sian. That was a fair point, and it made me go away and think. I am willing to work with anybody at Further Consideration Stage to come up with something that works.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Yes, Minister.

Mrs Long: A number of Members have referred to the age of 12 as a potential compromise landing zone. I know that the Member opposite will say that that was not the intention and that it was a kind of last-ditch attempt to stop us if the petition of concern did not work. However, there was some substance to the amendment, because it gave clarity and said that it would be for indictable-only offences. With respect, the difficulty with your amendment — the one that you left on the books and did not withdraw — is that we have received legal advice that we cannot do that. What you have suggested is unworkable, and the Assembly would not have the vires to impose that on the PPS and others without having to go through a whole process with the Attorney General and so on. Had we had a very clear "12 minus indictable offences", that might have gained some traction in the Chamber. The difficulty is that we are having this conversation in the context that the conversation was shut down too soon. That is a shame, because we could have made some progress in this mandate.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister. I am glad that she did not go down the road of saying that the amendment was not competent, having yesterday talked about never saying that what comes out of the Speaker's Office would be viewed as not competent or, indeed, that the drafters would do something that is not competent.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Just a minute. Minister, I guess that I disagree with you, because I too did my work. I accept that I do not have the resources that you and your Department have, but I sat with the Public Prosecution Service and talked through this very thing, and it said that it was workable. I sat with the PSNI and talked through this thing, and it said that it was workable. I sat with the Youth Justice Agency and talked through this thing, and it said that it was workable. It is not easy and it needs development — you are absolutely right — but I think that there is a compromise that will help us raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 while, at the same time, still supporting the victims. If I have mischaracterised something that you said yesterday, Minister, then I just misheard it. I will accept that.

Mrs Long: The issue here is that, for example — the Speaker can correct me if I am wrong — the test that the Speaker does at introduction is to ensure that amendments are competent. However, a further issue around competency is whether we have the ability to legislate on these issues. Previous pieces of legislation that have gone through here were then appealed by the Attorney General on competence grounds and had to go to the Secretary of State or someone else in order to see whether they were competent. My understanding is that the Speaker, to be fair, does not do those checks. Yesterday, what I found to be unacceptable — I am happy to put it on the record again — is that it was insulting to suggest that the drafting that was done by the Bill Office was incompetent and to describe it as having been written:

That was what I found offensive yesterday.

Mr Beattie: You did, in fairness: that is exactly what you said. However, I also distinctly remember you saying — I am happy to check Hansard on this — that something that comes out of the Speaker's Office, having been agreed as an amendment to be debated in the Chamber, should not be viewed as not being competent. I will check Hansard.

Mrs Long: There is a difference between legislative competence and competence.

Mr Beattie: I do not want to get stuck on this, because, actually, it has been a good debate, and I have put my point across.

Here is the thing.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. It has been a fascinating debate — tonight's debate, not last night's — on that aspect. The issue is this: the Minister said in her intervention that she would be prepared to compromise in the Chamber. However, my amendments had been tabled for quite a while, as was the petition of concern, to be fair. At no time did the Minister or her party come to me to discuss the amendments that we had tabled. Therefore, I did not see any inclination from the Minister, her party or the proposers of the amendment to move from their combined amendment to add or agree to the amendments that I had tabled. It is OK to say that in the aftermath of the petition of concern's being launched, but I just do not see that it would have happened.

Mr Beattie: Thank you for the intervention. As I said at the start, we can disagree agreeably. Some will definitely want the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be 14. Some will want the age to stay at 10. I think that 10 is too young, so I proposed that it be 12. I will not be the person who stands here and says that my amendment does not need work. If it needs work, it needs work. I am happy to do that work. However, the principle is sound.

The reality is that we were always going to be in this space. We were always going to be in this space because of confidence. Whether we like it or not, we are in a closed bubble in the Chamber and not living out there and hearing what people think, but there is a lack of confidence. While I understand the reasons why we are doing this through amendments, doing it in that way does not bring confidence. Having such a big jump from the age of 10 to the age of 14 was always going to result in kickback. I always saw that coming. That is one of the reasons why I tried to soften it. I did not want to have this conversation through amendments. However, that is where we find ourselves. I tried to soften that —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: — just to try to get something across the line. What I do not want to do is have the same debate next year, the year after or at a later stage, or have something that will corrupt our politics. I think that it already has. I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: I understand what the Member is saying. However, is he aware, first, that it was made clear by the DUP earlier that 12 would not have been acceptable and, secondly, that his amendment is also under the petition of concern as things stand? Therefore, it softened nothing and changed nothing, Doug. The truth is that we are in a situation here where it is the DUP's way or the highway. That is the space that we are in. Unfortunately, your former colleagues facilitated that.

Mr Beattie: Well, as I said at the very start, Minister, I would not have signed the petition of concern. I stand in this corner because of the principle that I have on this particular issue — along with other issues, of course. I take on board exactly what you are saying. However, I have to be honest: it was always going to end up like this because it is such a change —

Mrs Long: Not if they had not signed.

Mr Beattie: — from 10 to 14. The Ulster Unionist Party's signing is up to the Ulster Unionist Party.

Mr Chambers: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to point her finger at me? [Laughter.]

Mrs Long: I will tuck it away just in case

Mr Speaker: There has been a considerable amount of verbal finger-pointing, and the Minister has taken it to a new level.

Mr Frew: She might have winked at you.

Mrs Long: I will tuck it away.

Mr Speaker: If Members would refrain from making hand gestures at others, it might be helpful.

Mr Beattie, would you like to carry on?

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, we can all have a bit of a laugh at this as well, though it is a serious issue.

Minister, I have not given up on the age of 12. I certainly have not. Do you know what? We have 14 days. I have 14 days to persuade. [Interruption.]

I intend to use the 14 days to persuade. I may fail, but I will try. That means trying to persuade my former colleagues and the DUP's justice spokesperson and Chair of the Justice Committee. We can accept that we have failed, at the minute, to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility — for me, to 12 — but that does not mean that it stops. It does not mean that it has gone. It just means that we have to realign ourselves and try something —.

Mr Chambers: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Yes, of course.

Mr Chambers: Does the Member agree that, even with the petition of concern in place, his amendment could still be passed and go through into legislation were there a cross-community vote in favour of it? The petition of concern has not scuppered his amendment nor put it in the dustbin.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for his intervention and for raising my morale a little bit there. It is a real, fair point. There are people who may well see the amendment's merits, and, if those merits mean that we can raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility and still hold perpetrators of those serious crimes to account, there is something to work on there. That is what I intend to do.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member raises a valid point: the petition of concern's being down does not mean that something or nothing can pass. It basically means that you need a majority on one side of the House and on the other. The petition of concern is a blunt instrument, but it is the tool that we had at our disposal. However, the attitude of the other parties last night was very blunt, and there has been no effort to reach out to anyone on any sort of negotiation or even to try to focus minds.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for the intervention.

I do not want to get into the game of saying that I am finishing and then not finish, so I am finishing. Last night became a blood sport in this place. I have to be honest. I have to say this, and I am being honest with everybody: it was a two-way blood sport; a three-way blood sport; a four-way blood sport. It was all over the place. We do not need to see that again. We are talking about a really important issue here. We are debating an important issue. There is an outcome, and I am willing to work to try to get people to agree on my amendment.

Mr Speaker: We move to Claire Sugden, last but not least.

Ms Sugden: I am sure that you are all delighted to see me stand to give my contribution — well, we will see. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I hope to give a different perspective from that of other Members. I am not able to support any of the amendments, and, in my contribution, I will explain why.

If children as young as 10 are coming into contact with the criminal justice system, we have a serious problem, and that should concern all of us. It should force us to ask difficult questions about what has happened in that child's life long before they ever reached that point, and I appreciate that other Members acknowledged that in their contributions.

Most of us instinctively recognise that children are different from adults. They are still developing emotionally, psychologically and socially. They are susceptible to trauma, adverse childhood experiences and negative influences. Sadly, many children today, not least in Northern Ireland, are exposed to more of those influences than previous generations were. They are less able to assess risk, understand consequences and regulate their behaviour. For that reason, I believe that a legitimate conversation needs to be had about whether the current minimum age of criminal responsibility remains appropriate. Indeed, that is not a new conversation. It crossed my desk 10 years ago, when I was Minister of Justice. It was a difficult issue then, and it remains a difficult issue now, with little movement in those 10 years. I do not dismiss the arguments that have been made for change. Indeed, there is much in those arguments that I agree with in theory. While I agree with the argument for change, in principle, I remain unconvinced that we have done the work that is necessary to make that change be successful in practice.

Too often, the justice system is asked to deal with children whose difficulties began long before they ever came in contact with the police or even became known to social services, because many of them have experienced trauma, neglect, family breakdown, mental health difficulties, educational disadvantage, involvement with criminal influences or coercive control by paramilitary organisations. Many have been manipulated. Many are being exploited. By the time that they enter the justice system, multiple opportunities for intervention will have been missed. In truth, it is not a Department of Justice issue; it is a Department of Health issue, a Department of Education issue and a Department for Communities issue as well. It becomes an issue for the Department of Justice only after all the other systems fail. It is the cost of failure in our society. If we are serious about reducing offending among children, we need to understand why children offend in the first place. We need evidence, interventions and properly funded support services, and we need to identify vulnerability earlier and respond to it more effectively.

One of my concerns about the debate, which has been stalled for many years, is that those who support change are seeking to use the Justice Bill as the vehicle to move the conversation forward, and I understand why. There is a belief that, if the law changes now, the support systems to enable the change will follow and a belief that the amendment may be the only available opportunity to make progress at this time. I am sympathetic to that, because progress has not been made by the Executive or through a private Member's Bill. My difficulty is that I do not share that confidence that the support systems will follow, because, throughout the mandate, we have repeatedly heard Ministers, Departments and public bodies explain that existing statutory responsibilities cannot be fully delivered because funding is unavailable or resources are stretched beyond capacity. Against that backdrop, I struggle to understand why we should assume that creating new obligations will automatically produce the services that are currently missing.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, Minister.

Mrs Long: As a result of Ray Jones's report, considerable work has been done with those in children's social services and youth justice to develop new mechanisms to deal with young people at risk of offending, so a lot of the groundwork has been laid. The Member will appreciate, given what has been said in the Chamber, that it would be foolish of me, as Minister, to drive forward further change until such times as there is legislative certainty. Some people want to put the cart before the horse, but, until we know that there will be change, it would be foolhardy for us to invest further in that aspect of the work. The purpose of not having a commencement date in the legislation, however, is to ensure that it does not become law until such measures are delivered. There is therefore no risk of moving ahead at a pace that the system cannot deal with.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate that, and I have reviewed the Ray Jones report. I can see the groundwork that has been laid, but my difficulty is that that was a health and social care report. Minister, with respect, if we were going to get the support from an Executive who have to follow through on legislation, the change would have been agreed at the Executive table. I am therefore battling a little with the fact that if you, as Minister of Justice, cannot convince your Executive colleagues, who, ultimately, have to implement the change, to agree to it, where will the commitment come from to put in place the services that we need?

I appreciate what you say about putting the cart before the horse, but it is such a serious issue. I say that not from my experience as Justice Minister — I was in the job for merely nine months — but from my experience of being an MLA for 12 years and seeing the failure on the ground to support children. I will cover it in my contribution, but my view comes from a place of genuine fear about expectations that are based on research and data from across the world. Does that apply in the context of Northern Ireland? Does it apply in the context of silo government and public services that are at capacity and for which there is no money? I am not sure that it does. We have to be careful about assuming that the outcomes that research and evidence have found across the world apply to the Northern Ireland context, because that is to assume that we have in place all the things that others have.

I do not think that we do. I am happy to be challenged on that, but having listened to the debate, I have heard the punitive arguments. That is why, I believe, I am putting forward a different argument. I am not disagreeing with what people are trying to achieve here. I agree that 10 is too young, but what is the alternative? What is the replacement for that?

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Go ahead, please.

Ms Ferguson: It is not about additionality — additional money or additional services. It is about how we treat young people. Whether or not you adopt a punitive approach — it might be in a community playgroup, a primary school or secondary school — it is about how you support children. It is not about additional resources. It is about looking through a trauma-informed lens when you are working with vulnerable or disadvantaged children. That is the answer.

Ms Sugden: With respect, how we treat people will depend on finances and on the public service response. Quite frankly, that just does not exist.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: I will finish my point, Minister. My difficulty is that I do not disagree with the principle of what we are trying to achieve here. I entirely agree that we need to approach this matter in a different way, and not in a punitive way. We need to do that with the appropriate support services in place. Given my daily conversations with social workers in my constituency, who struggle in a different capacity, I do not think that we have thought through how this will work in practice. That really concerns me.

Ms Ferguson: Will you take an intervention?

Ms Sugden: I am going to take an intervention from the Minister, because she asked first.

Mrs Long: The Member will recall that the most expensive interventions are late-stage interventions. That is the first thing. The cheapest and most successful interventions, with the best value for money, are early-stage interventions. When you take young people through court and criminalise them — even out-of-court disposals require a young person to go through the charge system — it costs money that would be better spent were it deflected, along with the young person, away from that kind of justice and into systems that would give them the support that they need in order to desist from offending. To me, that is the point. This is not just about the heart; it is also about the head. That would be a better value-for-money solution, even more so if, in the long run, those young people go on to live more productive lives.

Ms Sugden: Minister, I agree with you, but what is being proposed is the end point rather than being about how we get there. I will continue, and the Minister can interject as appropriate. Had this proposal come before the Assembly as part of a fully developed Executive strategy, not a Justice proposal as such, but supported by the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the Department for Communities and the Department of Justice — we are capable of doing that, because we have seen it with the ending violence against women and girls strategy — with clear plans, clear responsibilities and clear funding attached, I would support what is being asked for. What we are seeing, however, is the end action, if you like, for something that has not been fully thought through.

I appreciate that there have been reports, including the Ray Jones report, which was published in 2023. However, the change does not have the commitment of the Executive, nor does it have the commitment of public services across Northern Ireland. People are genuinely fearful that we are doing this too soon. I say that reluctantly, because, as I said earlier, we have been having this conversation for 10-plus years. What have we been doing in those 10-plus years? That is not a criticism of the Justice Minister. This place was down, and we could not pursue that. Unfortunately, we were too distracted by other things that do not have an impact on people's lives as much as issues such as this do.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Go ahead, please.

Mrs Long: First, I was not here 15 years ago; I was elsewhere. Over the past five years and during the Member's time in office and that of my predecessor David Ford, within the constraints of the MACR being 10, we have been deflecting people away from the justice system; providing a more trauma-informed approach; engaging with young people who are at risk of offending, as opposed to waiting until they have offended; and moving upstream to provide child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), in conjunction with the Department of Education but paid for by the Department of Justice in certain circumstances, for young people who are suffering from trauma and who may offend as a result.

The idea that nothing has changed in the 15 years since the report on this issue first recommended 14 as the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not true. To say that nothing has changed since David Ford proposed that we move to 12 is not true. To say that nothing is changing and that that situation will continue, irrespective of what happens with the amendments, would also be untrue. Progress is being made. The problem is that progress is limited by the fact that the children, ultimately, will be criminalised. Members are either in favour of that or against it.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Go ahead.

Ms Ferguson: As someone who worked in this area from 2009, I can say that there has been loads of progress. I was not working in here but in the heart of communities with the most vulnerable kids. Back in 2009, family support hubs were set up. We have 29 family support hubs. We recently saw an announcement of £60 million. We have Sure Start programmes. We have joined-up services. Our organisations at a local neighbourhood level are way ahead of the Assembly, because they collaborate. They work together, look at all the programmes and use whatever resources they can to target the most vulnerable. Look at the Executive programmes under tackling paramilitarism: I ran a series of programmes under the tackling paramilitarism programme. We took the kids who were most at risk, were not attending school and were in low-level crime, pulled them out of school, educated them, supported them and basically gave them a granny who would look after, nurture and care for them. Some of those young people are now employed and are some of the best employees that companies have in the community. That work has been done over the past 15 or 16 years across all Departments, to give them their dues. That is from someone who has worked in the heart of the community, supporting children and young people who are most vulnerable and who, if not supported, will end up in the criminal justice system for the rest of their days.

Ms Sugden: I did not say that progress was not happening outside of the Building. My point was that progress has not happened inside it. Otherwise, the measure would be in a stand-alone Bill introduced by the Minister of Justice, not an amendment from one of her party colleagues on the Back Benches. The reason that it has been brought forward in an amendment by one her party colleagues on the Back Benches is that she could not get Executive agreement for it. The point that I am trying to make —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: No, I want to finish my point. I will give way in a minute.

My point is that, if we cannot get that commitment around the Executive table, how can we genuinely ensure that what we are trying to do will be fully implemented? That is a risk.

Ms Ferguson: Who is creating that risk?

Ms Sugden: The Northern Ireland Executive.

Ms Ferguson: Who is in the Northern Ireland Executive?

Mr Speaker: This is not a conversation. If you want to intervene, intervene properly.

Ms Sugden: It is the silo approach to our government. It is the fact that the Departments are not working together. That is the failure. That is where progress has not happened. I appreciate what the Minister said about a trauma-informed approach. Prior to her being announced as Justice Minister, I met with her permanent secretary and ensured that, had I been given the role, we would have put together a trauma-informed approach. I recognise and commend the work that goes on in the Department of Justice, and I commend communities for doing that work too. The biggest problem for me is that the people who would make the decisions and drive forward and fully implement the change are not on board. They are not. Otherwise, the Minister would have introduced the measure in her Bill, it would have been signed off by her Executive colleagues, and we would not be debating it as a Back-Bench amendment to a Justice Bill. That is what worries me.

l will recommend something to the Minister, because we are where we are with the petition of concern. I would really like to see a review of why children commit crime, one that looks at all the things that she has talked about, building on the Ray Jones review, but also looks at what Health is not doing and what Communities is not doing.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, go ahead.

Mrs Long: There have been literally —

Ms Sugden: Thousands.

Mrs Long: — thousands of reports on why children engage in offending. The Department, through the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC), produced a list of ACEs, reasons why children and, indeed, adults with high levels of ACEs are more likely to offend and details of what you can do to prevent that. The last thing that young people need is another report that nobody wants to do anything about, like the one in 2011. They would rather leave those young people dangling until they are the adults sitting in the Chamber making the decisions.

Ms Sugden: Minister, with respect, how many recommendations from those reports have been implemented?

Mrs Long: All the ones that [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Sugden: Does that include reducing the minimum age of criminal responsibility? If that is the case, why is this a Back-Bench amendment to a Justice Bill?

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for letting me in. I want to address that point. We came into this mandate with our election manifesto. As Mr Gaston pointed out, this was one of the policy areas that we wanted to work on.

Mr Gaston: Alliance's little helper.

Ms Bradshaw: OK.

Other political parties have not prioritised it. The Executive were never going to have duplicate manifesto pledges about stuff that they were going to work on. They can take forward only the things on which they have common agreement. Should we let those young people down and not try to advance policies and legislative change in the Chamber just because other members of the Executive are not on board with our policy pursuits?

Ms Sugden: By all means pursue that, but you are asking me to vote on a policy change that requires that input and commitment. Sadly, I do not see it.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Go ahead.

Ms Bradshaw: If we make legislative change in the Chamber, there is a statutory duty on the relevant Department to deliver on the elements that pertain under its vires. We have an Education Minister from the DUP at this time, but next time it might be Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionist Party etc. Departments are not wee fiefdoms for a particular political party's Minister; they deliver statutory services for all the people of Northern Ireland, not just the people who support the DUP, for example.

Ms Sugden: I agree with that, but, unfortunately, when Ministers do not support a proposal and there is not collective responsibility at the Executive table, that is what it ends up being. Maybe that is a criticism of our Government and how issues are taken forward.

The point that I am trying to make is that I do not disagree with the principle of what we are trying to do. This should be about recognising why children commit crime. I get your point about reports and all of that, but what has followed? The amendment is not the result of a recommendation that has been fulfilled from an Executive report; it is a Back-Bench amendment to the Justice Bill.

Over recent days, people have said that we need to have this conversation more widely in the public domain. That is fair. Quite frankly, most people are only hearing about this because of the debate today. I commend the proponents of the amendment for doing it, because we are finally having the conversation. Sadly, the reality is that we still will not go anywhere with it. I recommend that the Minister takes forward something on her own initiative and calls the bluff of those who say that this is something that we need by saying, "OK, Executive colleagues. If this isn't fully worked out from an Executive perspective, let's do it with a cross-departmental approach". If you are not going to do that, where do we move next?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes.

Mrs Long: The Member sat on the Executive for nine months, and she has sat in the Chamber all day today. On what planet can I go forward and do this without the agreement of the DUP? It has said clearly that, whether in this mandate or the next mandate, it will not agree to any change. I accept that the Member thinks that I have great powers of persuasion — I agree with her on that — but the truth is that I do not expect that I will shift the DUP from its clear position as stated tonight, backed with a petition of concern, to one where it will work on this. What I can do, and what I said I would do and what I have been doing, is work within the law to remove young people from the justice system by having a more progressive youth justice system, but that can take us only so far. We can do the trauma-informed practice. We can look at ACEs and how to intervene on them. I can agree with Paul Givan and Mike Nesbitt on how we deal with child criminal exploitation and launch joint reports. However, we cannot agree on this one issue, and there is an opportunity for Members to nail their colours to the mast as to whether they are for the change or against it. With respect, the Member is making excuses for taking no decision.

Ms Sugden: No, Minister, I am not making excuses for taking no decision; I have said that I cannot accept the premise of the change on the basis of amendments, because I am not convinced that that is the right way to do it. I have heard others say the same. With respect, Minister, if you cannot do it as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, and we are recognising that, why are you in the Executive?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Go ahead.

Mrs Long: This is a Back-Bench amendment to a Bill that has many clauses that will benefit the people of Northern Ireland. I make no apology for wanting to progress my agenda insofar as I can.

There is no party in the Executive that will get everything that it wants through the Executive. That is the reality, and, if it was not the reality that you experienced in your nine months, I assure you that it has been the reality that I have experienced in my almost five years. No party gets everything that it wants. All parties become frustrated. Clearly, this is a point of frustration for me, but, if we were all to take the view that we will just take our toys and go home, we would not have an Executive, and you, along with everyone else, would be saying that we were failing to govern.

Ms Sugden: Wow, Minister. I think that you are failing to govern, which is why this is being introduced as a Back-Bench amendment by your party. What I am suggesting to you is —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Sugden: No, I will make progress, because I expect that the intervention will be more of the same.

What I suggest to you is that, if you want to move forward on the issue, which you and your colleagues are clearly so passionate about — as I said, I am not unsympathetic to what you are trying to do — you need to convince us as Members to do that. My job as a Back-Bench MLA is to hold to account the Northern Ireland Executive of which you are part. If you are telling me that you are unable to convince your colleagues in the Executive, what confidence do I have, as a Back-Bench Member who scrutinises that Executive, that we are going to —?

Mrs Long: That is pathetic.

Ms Sugden: Well, Minister, that is the reality of the Executive that you are part of.

Mrs Long: You are just not taking a decision.

Ms Sugden: I am taking a decision not to support the amendments, because I see the difficulty with them on the ground. It is not to do with my time in Justice; I have already said that. It is to do with my 12 years' experience of working on the ground, chatting to the statutory agencies and seeing the pressure that they are under and the failures that happen. When police officers who are aware of what we are trying to do come to me saying, "Don't do it. We will be worse off", that gives me pause for thought. It should certainly give you, as Minister of Justice, pause for thought.

Mrs Long: Will you take an intervention?

Ms Sugden: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: If you are saying, "Don't do it; it's dangerous", that is fine. Take that position. Say that you agree with the DUP or that you agree with Doug, the UUP or the TUV that we should not raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility because the police are telling you that it is dangerous. That is fine. Say that. Do not make some pretence that it is a failure on my part to convince people who are not convincible about the issue. That is not fair criticism or accountability in the Chamber. If you do not think that it will work, which is, essentially, what you just said and is a new tack, and they are telling you not to do it, that is fine, but own the decision. You want to ride two horses. You want to say that you are in favour of it but not vote in favour of it. That is fine. We know that now.

Ms Sugden: Minister, you are misrepresenting me. I did not say that. I said that I am sympathetic to what you are trying to do. I am just not sympathetic with how you are trying to do it. A Back-Bench amendment is not the appropriate vehicle by which to do it. I would much rather see a collective Executive response, and I reiterate that, because the support and implementation required would come not only from your Department but from Health, Communities and Education, and we are not seeing that. Therefore, I think that it is dangerous. It is not me trying to ride two horses. Again, if we were in a similar circumstance to where this has been implemented across the world, I would be more sympathetic. Minister, there is context to everything, and the context does not exist for this to be an appropriate or safe amendment moving forward. Why stop the conversation there? Why not commit in your final months as Justice Minister to put that review in place and to open up the conversation?

As I said, I commend the proponents of the amendments for bringing this conversation forward and into the public domain. That is important, but let us do it in a way that convinces not just me. I do not stand here on my own behalf. I stand here as a representative of my constituents, and it is many of them who are saying this to me. For you to disregard that and to be quite indignant about that is disappointing. How we move forward in the debate is not by calling people names in relation to sitting on the fence. It is to be responsible about the job that we need to do in the Assembly.

It is a difficult and serious issue when I am not supporting it, because I like to think that I take a reasoned position on this. I hear all different perspectives in the House, so, if I am not supporting it, maybe you should understand why rather than criticising the reasons just because I disagree with you.

Those are fundamental questions. I am not comfortable with criminalising 10-year-olds, but neither am I comfortable that we are removing a framework without being satisfied that there is something better ready to take its place. We have to be uncomfortable with the fact that, for some of the most vulnerable children in our society — I regret saying this — contact with the justice system may be one of the first points at which they receive consistent intervention, structured support or sustained engagement from public services. Sadly, that is my experience. I appreciate what is happening in Foyle and Belfast, but that is not necessarily happening in East Londonderry or other constituencies across Northern Ireland. Unless we have a consistent approach — we will not, because a lot of it is from community and voluntary interventions, and we know how unstable the funding is in those areas — we will not have the ideal that you describe. Again, I come back to our Executive. I do not see the commitment there to what we are trying to do. It is across the board, it is cross-cutting, it requires a holistic approach, and I am not convinced.

Again, this is not an argument for criminalising children, despite what others may accuse me of. It is an indictment of the failures that occur long before the child reaches the point of crisis; it is an indictment of the opportunities that were missed; it is an indictment of the interventions that never happened; and it is an indictment of the wider system that often waits for too long to respond and does not do so until the child is in crisis. If we are going to remove a framework, we have a responsibility to demonstrate that there is something better to replace it. It is not good enough to say that the statutory obligation will require that, because, as I said —

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: — many statutory obligations are not being upheld, so why would I be convinced that this one would be upheld?

Go ahead.

Miss McAllister: The Minister has already outlined, as has my colleague who is one of the co-signatories to the amendment, that it would not be commenced until the frameworks were in place. Some of the work has already been done by way of the Ray Jones review and the recommendations that he made regarding interaction between youth justice and social services. We can also look at what happened in Scotland, the Republic of Ireland and many other jurisdictions. There is best practice — we do not need to reinvent the wheel — and we can take that best practice. That is important. Ultimately, however, it would not be commenced until those were in place.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate that, but are you convinced that those things will be put in place prior to that commencement? Are you convinced that the Minister of Health, the Minister for Communities and the Minister of Education — if his support is required — will commit to that, despite the fact that they have not supported this at the Executive?

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, go ahead.

Miss McAllister: It will not be commenced until they are put in place. Yes, we have slow progress here when it comes to certain issues in the Executive and the Health Department. However, as someone who sits on the Health Committee — other Members have made this point — I can say that, when we see implementation of the Ray Jones review, for example, it is up to us as legislators and MLAs who scrutinise to hold them to account. It would not be commenced until it happens. Yes, ultimately, I believe that it would happen.

Ms Sugden: My point is not about the commencement but about what happens prior to the commencement. You may be convinced of that, but I am not, and that is why I am not supporting it. It is because of my 12 years of experience in my constituency office and seeing the failures that happen to our children day in, day out. That is my biggest worry. If we get it wrong, everybody loses. The child who has offended loses and does not get the intervention that they need; the child who is at risk of offending does not necessarily get the support early enough to prevent it; and the victim may not receive the accountability that they expect.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes.

Mrs Long: We covered those issues yesterday. The early intervention would not be affected. I listened to what Paul Givan said today. I sought confirmation on the engagement at school level. It would not be affected; the role of the children's panels and the work done there, for example, would not be affected; and the accountability for victims may, in fact, be increased on the basis that they may get restorative practice in place, which would be more beneficial.

We have said what the alternatives might look like, and we have said what can be done. I feel that the Member is searching for reasons not to support this as opposed to genuinely scrutinising what is in front of us. That is fine.

I am not indignant if she does not support the amendment. I am just frustrated that she will not say that she does not want the age to be raised from 10 and be done with it. It just seems to me to be a weird construct to say that, on the one hand, she thinks it is dangerous but that, on the other hand, she thinks that it is not. On the one hand, she wants to go with it, but, on the other hand, she does not think that the Executive will deliver on it.

The only thing that we can really do tonight is decide whether we go ahead and do it or not. If we are not going to do it, we accept criminalising children at 10. If we are going to do it, we accept that we will have to make different provision for them between that age and whatever age the Assembly chooses.

Ms Sugden: Minister, I do not accept that summary of what I set out. It is not a case of accepting it or not: there is context. There is data.

Mrs Long: It is aye or no.

Ms Sugden: It is aye or no, but I do not have the context to go down the route of saying aye. I will go through the No Lobby when we vote, but, if I were to have the context that neither you nor the Executive have provided, I might go through the Aye Lobby. We can change our mind if information is available. I think that you said that Mr Frew's position may be movable, yet now you say that mine is not, because it is either yes or no. I have spoken to the various children's sector organisations and said to them, "I'm movable on this, but provide me with data and information". It is not about rehashing reports but about doing it from an Executive perspective. Minister, I will keep reiterating the point that you need Executive support, and I do not think that you have it. I know that you do not have it, because the amendment is a Back-Bench amendment.

I will move on to speaking about victims. There is the uncomfortable reality that some children commit extremely serious offences. Victims do not experience less harm because the person responsible is a particular age. The families of lost loved ones do not suffer less because the offender is a child. Communities affected by serious violence do not experience that harm any less. That does not mean that children should be treated as adults — far from it — but it does mean that any reform must carefully balance the developmental needs of a child, the rights of victims and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

If children as young as 10 are committing serious offences, as I said at the start, we have a serious problem. I feel that we are approaching the end of that problem rather than the beginning. I know that you agree with me, Minister, because I have heard you say it in other debates. This did not begin in your Department. It began long before a child ever came near it. Members will point to jurisdictions where the age of criminal responsibility is higher. That is fair, but are those comparisons useful if we are not willing to look at them in the context in which those jurisdictions operate? What interventions and support services exist there? What resources are available? What responsibilities are placed on other Departments? What outcomes have been achieved? Is all of that together in one report? Is it something that the Executive are taking forward?

If we are to start importing a number — I will come to the specific number in a minute — we must be prepared to examine whether we have the structures in place that make that number work. I have listened carefully to the debate on whether the age should be 12, 14 or 16. To be honest, I come back to the same conclusion, which is that the age does not matter to me as much as the conversation about how we support the change, should we make it. Where is the evidence for Northern Ireland, not the evidence from jurisdictions across Europe and not necessarily the evidence from Scotland? Where is the evidence for our particular context, in which we have a siloed Government and Ministers around the Executive table who cannot agree? How can we drive such an important policy change if we do not have the commitment from the people who are responsible for driving it?

Where is the work on examining the capacity of our systems to respond? What is the assessment of the additional support that will be required? We are being asked to vote on a number, and I am asking what sits behind that number. If we cannot answer that question, are we ready to make the change? For me, it comes down to context, readiness and preparedness. As a Back-Bench Member whose job it is to scrutinise the Executive, I think those are valid questions. It is not simply a case of yes or no but a case how we do it. That is what I am asking.

I am not hearing the conversations; I hear, "Let's raise this, and everything else will follow". Forgive me, given my experience of being in the Chamber for 12 years, for not trusting the Executive to follow through on the things that they promise us. That comes from seeing failure after failure.

I come back to the need to understand why children offend. It is about preventing offending and ensuring that, when intervention is needed, that support is there. I hope that people listening to my contribution see the matter from that perspective. I came into the Chamber having made my feelings about this clear in conversations with Members and the sector. I will be honest: I am still not convinced by this. If I am not convinced, how do we convince the public? How do we convince the people we represent? How do we convince the services on the ground, given the things that their staff tell me? I appreciate that that is anecdotal — that is my experience — and that others may have experience of other parts of Northern Ireland, but I am one of 90 MLAs and, I am sure, others have had the same experience. We need to iron that out, but we should do so before we reach the point at which we potentially vote for it.

Convince me. Genuinely, I am probably the most movable person on the issue, because I agree with the proposal in principle. However, agreeing with it in principle is different from agreeing with it in practice, and, as legislators, we have a responsibility to look at it in practice. Otherwise, what is the point of examining legislation?

Mrs Long: As always, I will comment a little on the debate. You will be aware that the debate took a turn for the worse yesterday; however, I am glad to see that the discussion today has been much more respectful, conciliatory and useful. I cannot imagine why that would be.

As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I take seriously issues of process in the Chamber. It is not a matter of, as some have dismissed it, "hurty words". I have heard more hurty words in my time in politics than I have had hot dinners — some will find that hard to believe — but that is not what it is about. It is about decorum in this place and respect for the job that we do. It is an important job; it is a serious job; and it is important that we treat it with the seriousness and dignity that it deserves. It is also important that we show leadership in how we engage with one another even when we disagree. In life, we will disagree, but we can do it well or we can do it as some Members did it yesterday and drag everybody into the mire. That does not help the way in which people view the institutions.

I will be clear. Allegations were made yesterday that I briefly want to address. My colleague Nuala McAllister has already dealt with what was said about people being incompetent, the legislation having been written on the back of a fag packet and the accusation of legalising rape, all of which was insulting madness. There is also, however, the matter of people in the sector who are experts and work every day with children at that formative stage in their lives. They deal with some of the most difficult and deprived young people who have faced genuine hardship. Their skills as social workers were dismissed as saying, "Have a sit on a beanbag and a cup of coffee". That is an insult to the work of social workers. I would love to hear the party colleague of the Member who made that insult, who happens to be the Health Minister and responsible for social services, try to justify to his workforce, who sweat blood and shed tears over the vulnerable young people in their care, the view that all they do is set people on beanbags and give them cups of coffee.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Minister take an intervention?

Mrs Long: I will, yes.

Ms Mulholland: Does the Minister agree that, while some may have that perception of social work — softly-softly, nicey-nicey; sit on a beanbag — it is social workers who are at the coalface, doing the day-to-day heavy lifting? While other professions parachute in and out of a young person's life, social workers and youth practitioners are there for the long run.

Mrs Long: Absolutely. That is why we increasingly look to youth workers and youth services to guide young people who are at risk of offending and those who have been the victims or the perpetrators of violence.

When those young people turn up at A&E in Altnagelvin or the Ulster Hospital, it is youth services that provide the guidance for them through the Connect project in Derry and a scheme in my constituency.

The dismissal of real expertise, including that of the Youth Justice Agency — people who work not just with young people but with their families, their communities and their peer groups — as worthless is beneath the Chamber. I wanted to put that on record. It spills over into the same nonsense about the work of probation. We get the same nonsense of people treating probation as if it were in some way light-touch, soft and not a real sentence and does not make a real difference when we know that, for short sentences of less than a year, a probation disposal is more effective than a custodial intervention at ending reoffending. How do we know that? We know that because there are actual, hard facts that show all of that.

We were told that the amendment collapsed under scrutiny. The debate last night did not collapse under scrutiny; it collapsed under a petition of concern and the weight of some Members' egos. That is why it collapsed into the mess that it did. Let us not pretend that it collapsed under the weight of argument, because, if Members were as confident about the weight of their argument as they claim to be, a, they would not have signed the petition of concern and, b, they would be here tonight to defend their position

Miss McAllister: Or they would make a contribution.

Mrs Long: They would have something to say: an actual contribution to make. The truth was and still is that the majority of Members are in favour of it.

Miss McAllister: Will the Minister take an intervention?

Mrs Long: I will in a second.

The amendment did not collapse under scrutiny. The problem is that we now have a predetermined outcome. I know that some people will shrug and say, "Well, don't you always? You all come to the Chamber and just vote the way you were going to vote. You don't really listen to one another, and you don't really engage: it's always predetermined". Well, that is not true. Let me give you an example to show that it is not true. I value debate. I actually listen to what other people say and try to respond. I know that that is annoying because I make a lot of interventions, but that is what good debate looks like: it is an exchange of ideas and an opportunity to try to answer unanswered questions. If you want to come here and just read into the record, post it in, because you are making no contribution to the sum total of what we learn in these debates.

A number of weeks ago, at the Second Stage of the Education Inspections Bill, we came to the Chamber fairly sceptical of the Minister's intent, but we engaged with the Minister, sought assurances on the issues about which we were concerned, received those assurances during the debate and voted for the Bill. We did not roll up intending to vote in a certain way irrespective of what happened. We often do that, because that is what political discourse is about, and that is what we should do in the House.

Things have been said in the Chamber that I disagree with, but other things have been said that have given me food for thought with regard to how to navigate some of the more difficult cases. I have not been sitting here presuming that this would be simple, but I have said from the beginning that it would require an alternative proposal for how to deal with such cases. First of all, however, we need to take a step and say that we actually want to move, because, if we do not want to move, it is a nugatory, pointless exercise for me to ask my officials to do it.

People also say, "Well, it's going to predetermine the outcome". Sadly, it probably will. It probably will, because those who have already bent to the pressure are unlikely to change their minds. That made the rest of the debate feel futile and again turned the Chamber into the Theatre of the Absurd for a period. I did not sign up to be onstage in the Theatre of the Absurd. Like most others in the Chamber, I come here to try to do the best that I can for my constituents.

I have been clear that I do not believe that it is right that, in a democratic Chamber such as this, my vote should count for any less than the Chairman's vote or the Deputy Chairman's vote or anyone else's vote in the Chamber, nor should theirs count for any more than mine. That is a basic democratic norm, but that was turned on its head last night, and heat rather than light was generated as a result. I probably contributed to that, so, through the Chair, I apologise if I contributed to that. It was not my intention to do so, because I value the order that comes from the Chamber. I value the orderly debates that we have, but I cannot place value on what happens in the Chamber if I am going to be routinely excluded from processes that matter to me and my colleagues. It disenfranchises not only the Alliance Members of the House but a section of our electorate. I caution Members against thinking that that is the way forward, because dismissing other people's electorate is something that we are often charged with in the Alliance Party — that we do not understand how other people think. Very little thought is given to how our voters think when it comes to issues such as this. Very little respect is paid to our voters when it comes to issues such as this.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member take a point?

Mrs Long: No, I will not give way at this point.

I want to be able to come here and have a debate, and there was a debate that we could have had, but I was denied that first at the Executive. When people ask what did I do to try to bring people with me, I will say that, first, there was a report. Then we went for the age of 12, which David Ford proposed in the previous mandate, but it was voted down. We then approached the other parties at special adviser level when I came back into office, and we suggested having a conversation about this, but we got no response from certain parties. I do not need to be detailed about which ones, because we all know. We then reached out again, and we provided the data to back up the position. We set out why we wanted to make the change, the benefits that it could bring and the support that it had, but that conversation was not progressed. Therefore, on the one hand, Members want me to solve the problem, but they are unwilling to engage at the appropriate time for me to be able to do that. Therefore, it is a failure of our politics that we are here tonight, and it is likely that all the amendments will fall. It is a failure, but I do not accept that it is my failure, because I have reached out multiple times to discuss the issues with other parties, and I got nothing back from the DUP on it at all. The only response that we got was no, and you cannot negotiate with no.

Today, that was reinforced. Some Members talked about having to come back and do it all again. It was reinforced. I wrote it down: Paul Givan said that it would not happen in future mandates. To be clear, for those who are awaiting the reassurance of me providing an alternative system and placing it in front of them like a sacrifice so that they can see all the details of how it works, it is not going to happen, because we have been told that the answer is no. Unless there are significant changes in the representation in the Chamber, this is not going to happen. We need to accept that that is the reality. I cannot afford to spend money on flights of fancy, even if other Ministers have surplus money to do that.

I will move on to the issues in the motion. I turn, first of all, to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. There have been a lot of derogatory comments made about it. Yes, it is made up of experts and academics. That is what it does, but it is backed up, as my colleague rightly pointed out, by more than 90 organisations that work at the coalface on the issue that believe that the UNCRC has got it right. I am not one of those people who thinks that we should just dismiss expert opinion. I think that if we listened more to expert opinion and less to nonsense, we would be in a much better place as a society in general.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly said that the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland is not compatible with the Government's obligations — that is, the UK Government's obligations — under international standards of juvenile justice and the UNCRC responsibilities. We are also out of line with other age-related legislation, and how we treat children in the criminal justice system is plainly different from how we treat them in other areas of social policy. There is a fundamental disparity in the standards of accountability to which we hold children — and they are children. At 11 years old, children are making the transition from primary to secondary school. They are children.

Mr Kingston: So is a 17-year-old.

Mrs Long: Good luck to any 17-year-old who is still in primary school. [Laughter.]

Also, applying the same standards of criminal responsibility to a 10-year-old as we do to adults ignores the neuroscience and the evidence about their lack of emotional maturity. Do children at 10, 11, 12, and 13 years of age know right from wrong? At a basic level, yes, assuming that that has been instilled in them in the home, but not every child has that benefit. Not every child thinks that it is wrong to walk into a shop and take what they need, because they watch the adults in their life do that.

Miss McAllister: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will.

Miss McAllister: It is important to highlight the point that not all of these children have parents. Almost 60% of the young people who come into contact with the juvenile justice system, even those who are not incarcerated, are under the care of the state.

Mrs Long: Absolutely. I will also make a point that a number of Members made earlier. Young people in care often come into conflict with the police more regularly because the care system relies on the police to parent the children. I ask the Members of the House who have children this: would you let your 12-year-old daughter walk down the lane from your home, get into a car with an adult male and disappear for two or three days at a time? Would your only response be to ring the police and report a missing person, or would you stop them from going? Under our current regulations on restrictive practice, the care staff cannot stop them from going, and Ray Jones highlighted that in his report. If we are to protect those young people, we need to change that.

Applying the same standards to those children as we do to adults is not fair or just. Ten-year-olds do not have impulse control or an understanding of long-term consequences. I know that because my father died when I was 10, and I did not fully understand what permanence meant at that stage in my life. I could not understand it. To suggest, therefore, that, if I had murdered somebody, I would have understood the permanence of my action makes no sense to me. These are children. Often, the young people who display those concerning behaviours have experienced adversity, trauma or unmet needs, and, as mentioned earlier, they have been abused and neglected. Often, they are testing the boundaries in the hope that somebody will care enough to say no to them.

I met a young man in Hydebank who had spent his whole life being bounced between care homes and foster care, and he was abused at most stages of being moved around. I asked him how he found Hydebank, and I could have wept at his reply. He said that it was the best thing that had ever happened to him: for the first time in his life, somebody cared whether he woke up in the morning and got out of bed. It should not take a young person to be in prison before somebody cares whether they get up in the morning.

Our response has to be proportionate, age-appropriate and delivered through a proper multi-agency approach, and that is what we do. I understand the point that the Member was trying to make. The Executive have many failings, but, on the ground, multi-agency working does work. I cannot accept the idea that there is no attempt at multi-agency working; I see it all the time. I see the Department of Education, the Department of Health, the Department for Communities, the Executive Office and others working together. Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect anywhere, but it is pretty good. We also have a community and voluntary sector that makes a massive contribution, which is an advantage that many other regions do not have.

Offending and risk-taking behaviour by children below the minimum age of criminal responsibility would continue to be addressed but through the provision of welfare-based interventions rather than punitive responses. Offences committed by children aged between 10 and 13 years of age are rarely serious. In the past six years, only one child of that age has been sentenced to custody in the juvenile justice centre — one. On that basis, I think that we should be legislating for the majority of our young people, not for the outliers or for the rare cases but for the majority of children who pass through the system so that we can set them on a different path on which they can contribute to this society in a way that is constructive for them, their families and wider society and does not create more victims. I will provide the reassurance — I sought it today — that, irrespective of the change to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, we would still do our awareness raising and education for thousands of children every year through the Youth Justice Agency. We would still be working with social services on best practice. There is no suggestion otherwise or that that would be withdrawn.

Colleagues are aware that I want to see a change happen. I wish, like everybody wishes, that it could have been brought through an Executive-agreed amendment. However, wishes are all well and good, but real children are suffering as a result of the lack of progress. I would rather see progress than wait for the perfect circumstances in which to deliver it, because I do not believe, based on what we have heard today, that those perfect circumstances will ever be perfect enough. Yes, I was pleased that amendments were brought to the Bill, but, unlike what some Members said, I ordered nobody to do anything. Those people who think that, in politics, you can order your colleagues around are up for a rude awakening in that regard. You work with your colleagues. You do not tell them what to do.

I will deal with the amendments slightly out of order, which is not what I normally do. Amendment No 82, which is the cross-party amendment tabled by Emma Sheerin, Patsy McGlone and Sian Mulholland, would see an absolute increase in MACR in Northern Ireland to 12, as recommended by the independent youth justice review in 2011, and a caveated increase to 14, with exceptions for a limited number of very serious offences for 12- and 13-year-olds. There are different opinions before us, and I think that that is the best balance of those different opinions. For a number of Assembly colleagues, the inclusion of that safety net will be vital because of the risk of a child committing very serious offences. It has often been deployed, even in this debate, as an argument against doing it, but, when you try to address it, it is used against you to say, "Well, why are you doing it? It does not make sense if you think that children do not understand". It is about balance. It is about recognising that some offences are so heinous that they could actually cause such damage to victims that you have to balance that out. That is why those most serious offences were listed. I am very supportive of that amendment.

When it comes to the competing amendments on offer, I believe that amendment No 79, tabled by Sian Mulholland, which would raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14, with a number of exceptions for serious offences for those aged 10 or over, is a reasonable alternative and also worth considering for anybody who is interested in it. I hope that the exceptions in Sian's amendment will reassure Members who have previously expressed concern that grave offending would be taken from the ambit of the justice system by changes to the minimum age of criminal responsibility. That said, serious offending by children under 14 years of age in Northern Ireland is very rare, and there is no reason why an increase in MACR should change that. That is another myth that we have heard: if you raise MACR, suddenly all the organised crime gangs will want to suck all the young people who are under the MACR in. First, those gangs are already doing that. You cannot make that argument and, at the same time, stand up and say, "But what about the teenage rioters?". They are already being abused. The issue is that they would not be criminalised. They would be able to come forward and say that they are being abused and seek help, and, when they come to the attention of police when they are arrested at a riot, they would, in the first instance, be treated as a potential victim of child criminal exploitation rather than as a criminal. That is why it matters. There is no evidence that, in Scotland, there was any increase in offending among the cohort that fell below the raised MACR. To me, that just does not add up.

It should be emphasised that, if we achieve an increase, we would want other means of dealing with concerning behaviour.

As I said to Paul Givan when he was in the Chamber, if a child of nine were to lift a pair of scissors and stab somebody in the hand, does anybody seriously think that there would be no consequences? Of course there would be consequences. Would they be criminal consequences? No. Would there be consequences, however? Absolutely.

Frankly, if a child of 10 is engaging in rape, you have got to wonder where that child has been prematurely sexualised and ask questions of the people around them about potential abuse. We need to be willing to ask those kinds of questions in the debate, and not just look at every hard case on the boundary, because nine is as much a boundary as 10, 11, 12 or 13. The issue is this: what system would replace it? We have said that no change would be effected until a system was in place. That is belt and braces. We would work alongside statutory and third-sector partners to deliver the new framework and do so through taking a multi-agency approach outside the justice system.

We need to take seriously the stigmatisation of young people in the justice system. I do not like using victims and namechecking them in a way that, in some respects, tries to weaponise their experience against other people's opinion. I do not think that it is fair. It has been done to us today, but it is not fair. I will say this, however: young people out there are being sexually exploited. Recently, we had a case — Members will all be aware of it without my mentioning names — in which an individual was not just abusing young children on an industrial scale but forcing them to commit sexual offences with their siblings. One of those children was so scared that she killed herself. Surely we should learn the lesson of the fear that a 12-year-old child has when they are being criminally and sexually exploited and when they themselves have engaged in the abuse of another person but are then afraid to talk to their parents about it, because they realise that they have done something wrong. They had done something wrong, but they were a child: a child who was being manipulated by an adult.

That is why not criminalising young people matters. We want young people to be able to come forward without fear of judgement or retribution but still have accountability. We do not want young people who have been dragged into the wake of adult criminal activity to be so scared of authority that they cannot come forward. That is why not criminalising young people matters. That is why not stigmatising them in the community matters. The label of being a child who has been in care or in a juvenile justice centre sticks. Nobody in here, no matter how hard they try, can convince me otherwise, and they do try. Should amendment No 82 not get sufficient support, I will support Sian Mulholland's amendment.

Gerry Carroll's amendment seeks to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 16 with no exceptions. Today, somebody said, "Think back to when you were 13 or 14", and I did. I think back to when I was 16. For me, raising the age to 16 with no exceptions would be going too far. It is way too soon for that. I was a lot more savvy as a 16-year-old than I was as an 11-, 12- or 13-year-old. There may come a time when the system is able to deal with those young people outside the justice system as well. For now, however, it is better that they be inside the justice system at the age of 16. We are talking about allowing young people to vote at 16. We allow young people to join the cadets and get involved in all sorts of other things. Sixteen-year-olds can work and contribute taxes. On the issue of criminalisation, I am therefore slightly wary of infantilising them. It does not really make sense. I will be honest and say that I could not support raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 16 with no exceptions. I think that the amendment goes too far. I understand why others, having looked at international evidence, feel differently. However, if we were to make a pragmatic choice tonight, we could get somewhere, and we would be able to agree on somewhere between 12 and 14.

I do not support either of the two amendments in the names of Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston because they roll back the other amendments. However, I have said that, had the Members tabled a stand-alone primary amendment, with the age of 12 minus indictable offences, I would have been open to considering it. We did not get the chance. The first would roll it back.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I have sat here quite patiently over the past two days and listened after making my contribution, and I took a lot of interventions too at that time. Do those two scenarios not mean the same thing? We are amending an amendment. That means that we would take away the list of five, but bring in "triable only on indictment". The Minister said that she would not support that, but that she would have, had we brought it as a stand-alone amendment. Will the Minister clarify the difference for me, please?

Mrs Long: In order for your amendment to be moved, we would first have to agree one of the other two amendments, which would be my preference. Then, your amendments would come, and I would not want to unpick those. If you had a stand-alone amendment, and the first two fell, I would have voted for it. That is the circumstance in which I would have been happy to do so. It is a compromise, and any progress that we make in this mandate would be good.

Amendment No 84 would remove the exceptions specified in the cross-party amendment and replace them with any offence, "triable only on indictment". I have more sympathy with that, but I do not know that we would get to the point where there was an overall view. I am simply giving you my view: I would have some sympathy with that, because, last year, only about 16 children were tried on indictment in any respect, so we are talking, again, about small numbers.

I still believe that amendment No 82 strikes the best balance and is what I support. However, should that amendment receive support, I do not want to see it diluted. That is the point that I am making with respect to the DUP amendment. It also provides an opportunity to improve outcomes significantly for children right up to the age of 14. There are children who will go through the criminal justice system but ought not to. That is where I am at.

Last, but by no means least, if Doug —. No, Doug is not here, but he had tabled —. It is a pity, because this is quite important. We had a bit of a debate earlier as to whether people were competent or not competent, and whether motions were competent or not competent. There is a difference between legislative competence and the competence of the House to be able to make those decisions and people being incompetent in the way that they draft them. Just to make it clear, that is what I was referring to yesterday.

Amendment No 86, tabled by Doug Beattie, proposes increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12 years, but with a range of conditions attached. First of all, it does not meet the provisions of the UNCRC, which recommended that the age of criminal responsibility be at least 14, without exception. However, Alliance has been on record previously as supporting 12 in order to make progress with the review, so we are open-minded. I understand the concerns that Members have about serious offences, which is why I said that the age should be up to 14, with exceptions. However, the increase being proposed to 12, with a caveat that it will not apply to cases where the DPP decides that prosecution should proceed if it is in the public interest, does not go far enough, in my view. I am also concerned that children aged 10 and 11 years old can still be arrested and charged under the amendment. That means that they can also be held in custody under PACE and on remand, which will bring them further into contact with the justice system. They would be brought in and would have to be assessed at some level on whether or not there was a public interest in prosecuting them. We are seeking to prevent that.

I have sought the views officially of the PPS and the PSNI on the proposed amendment. I know that Doug said that he had had conversations with all sorts of people. However, I sought their views officially for the purposes of this debate. Both organisations raised concerns, and I want to put them on the record so that the Member for Upper Bann will be able to read them tomorrow.

The PSNI expressed concerns relating to the practical, legal and infrastructure consequences of the amendment as drafted, all of which represent a barrier to operationalising the proposed system. Amongst other issues, it noted that, under the proposal, the PSNI retains full powers to arrest, interview and charge children aged 10 and 11, yet the default legal presumption is that no such child can be guilty of an offence. That creates a lacuna in the law for the PSNI. In all but the most serious cases, the DPP will not find a compelling reason to prosecute, so officers will therefore process children through custody, with all the associated obligations under PACE, including appropriate adult provision, legal representation, custody records and interviews under caution, knowing that the overwhelming majority of cases will not proceed. The resource and operational implications of this are not insignificant.

The PPS response highlighted that the independent prosecutor has no role in defining the scope of the law, but the amendment would give it such a role. Its duty is simply to apply the test for prosecution based on the law that is already established by the legislature and the courts. The amendment tabled by Mr Beattie would therefore be a major departure from well-established norms and would give rise to a lack of certainty in the legal framework. While prosecutorial discretion has always existed, whereby not all breaches of the criminal law result in criminal proceedings, the proposed amendment goes much further by requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether conduct constitutes a criminal offence. Its view is that that would overextend the proper prosecutorial remit of its role and inappropriately encroach on the Assembly's lawmaking powers. Furthermore, the PPS raised concerns that the amendment would not be compliant with article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires criminal offences to be clearly defined in law.

We sought legal advice on that particular point from the Departmental Solicitor's Office and the Office of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, and it is clear that they also have concerns. The amendment carries a risk of being incompatible with article 7 of the ECHR and therefore could bring the provision outside the legislative competence of the Assembly, pursuant to section 6(2)(c) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That is clearly a position that we cannot support.

Ultimately, we know that serious offending in that age group is extremely rare. I therefore maintain the position that, in addressing harmful and concerning behaviour by children, particularly when they are as young as 10 or 11 years old, we, as a society, should adopt a welfare-based approach that seeks to examine and tackle the root causes of the behaviour. For me, that is the best opportunity to prevent reoffending and, crucially, to ensure that there are fewer victims. I did not become Minister of Justice simply to defend those who have done the indefensible. That is not my job; my job is to protect the public and ensure that the law is adequate to do that. That is my focus. It is about how to ensure that fewer people have criminal intent and continue to reoffend so that victims and the wider community are safe. I cannot support Mr Beattie's amendment.

I want to address the amendments tabled by Ms Mulholland and Mr Carroll that would introduce a review period. Given the length of time that it has taken us to get to a place in which an increase in the MACR is a genuine possibility, even given the concerns that people still hold, it is only right that we keep that change under review. Their amendments place a legislative requirement on my Department to do that review and publicly report on the findings. From my perspective, if we were to be in the position that any amendments pass, I would be happy to support either of the amendments on a review mechanism.

The minimum age of criminal responsibility has been one of the more challenging areas that we have debated, but we have demonstrated today that we can do so with some grace, thought and, I hope, good humour. Disagreement does not have to be a fight. Not every situation has to be about winning or losing. It is possible for us to work together and navigate a way through issues.

Whatever happens over the next two weeks, I appeal directly to the Ulster Unionist Party Member who has appeared on the Benches today and who signed the petition of concern to allow that process to take its course. Allow the votes of the people in the House to count equally, allow us to represent our constituents as we were elected to do and work with us, as we have agreed to work with you on previous amendments to ensure that, whatever we agree, it is something that will not just benefit any one party but will benefit the people of Northern Ireland, whom we have all been sent here to serve.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Sian Mulholland to make her winding-up speech.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Holy moly, it feels like a lifetime ago since I stood here to open debate on this group of amendments. First, I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate. I will make comments about the nature of the debate at a later point. Today has been what it was supposed to be. You will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to use my winding-up speech to repeat every argument that I and others have made. I will say, however, that the debate was meant to be about evidence, children and victims, and how we prevent harm; instead, we heard an awful lot about fear, distortion and political tactics.

First, to those who want a stand-alone Bill, let us be clear that it ain't coming from the Minister and it ain't coming from the Department via the Executive. I will, however, right here, right now, on record, commit that, if I am standing in the Chamber on this day next year, there will be a private Member's Bill that I will be proud to introduce. I expect the Members across the Chamber who have muzzled my vote on the amendments — I am not looking at you, Mr Deputy Speaker — to weigh in with their support and their ideas as to how we make the youth justice system better. I give that commitment now.

Amendment Nos 79 and 82 were grounded in evidence, in practice and in the experience of those who have worked daily with victims, children, families and communities. I cannot accept that the amendments were casual, simplistic, ideological or ill conceived. I have spoken about the process behind the amendments. This was not dropped in on a whim. This is something that I and others have been working on for a year, with over 100 hours of meetings for one amendment. To say that they were ill conceived and casual completely dismisses my work and that of Ms Sheerin and Mr McGlone. It is a dismissal of the evidence of the many organisations and professionals who gave their time and expertise to the process. How can Members of the House call for evidence-based policy and legislation and yet dismiss so readily the expertise and evidence of those whom we have worked with?

The list that Nuala read out shows the breadth of organisations and individuals that support reform. That does not sound like:

They are children's organisations, youth workers, social workers and legal experts. They are psychiatrists, psychologists, human rights organisations, women's organisations, education voices, community groups and victim and survivor support groups. Their work is not only life-changing — I have seen it — but life-saving, yet they were dismissed in some of the comments that we heard last night. That is not OK. They were not asking us to ignore harm; they were asking us to respond to harm better. They were not asking us to abandon victims; they were asking us to build a system that prevents future victims. They were not asking us to excuse harmful behaviour; they were asking us to recognise that criminalising a child in P6 is not the same as accountability. It is certainly not the same thing as justice.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Mulholland: Yes.

Miss McAllister: The Member and I and, possibly, one or two others in the Chamber have children who are about to go into primary 6 and to reach the age of 10. As a parent, do you agree that the idea that, in just a few short months, your child could be held criminally responsible for something that they might carry out is absolutely absurd? No child is an absolute angel, but is it not absurd that a child aged 10, as our children will be in a few short months, in P6, could be held criminally responsible?

Ms Mulholland: Thanks, Nuala. I have reflected on the entire process as a legislator, as a former youth worker and as a parent of a child who, in four months' time, will be that age. I find it really frightening but also really sad, because I know that my son and your son are exponentially less likely to come into contact with the justice system than some other children because of the upbringing that they have had. There are a lot of mixed feelings around that.

As a parent, I also want to see more parental responsibility. As I have said, if a child of 10 or 11 is out burning buses, burning out homes and throwing petrol bombs, where is the responsibility? The Member for North Belfast, my colleague Nuala McAllister, said that so many of those young people simply do not have a parental figure or caregiver in their life. That is a really big point, but the conversation also needs to look at what we do around family support. That is the key element. We can work with young people, but I know from experience that, if you do not work holistically around the child, they are much more likely to reoffend. The work has to be holistic.

I reject the suggestion that those who support reform do not stand with victims. I heard that suggestion so many times yesterday and last night. There is no monopoly in the House on supporting victims. I have to address a comment that was made, on which my colleague the Justice Minister intervened on my behalf, which was that I spent a great deal of time talking about the needs of "the poor young perpetrator" but made virtually no mention of the victims of crime. Victims were referenced over 30 times in my contribution alone, let alone throughout the contributions of many colleagues around the House. I will repeat something that I and many others said, that I stand by and that is one of the driving forces behind the amendments: the best way to prevent victims is to prevent further harm. That evidence is clear. Early criminalisation does not do that. I still have not been convinced otherwise.

Much of the argument that we heard last night and today was around the most extreme cases. Those cases matter — of course they do — especially when there is deep and serious harm, but hard cases make bad law. Legislating on the basis of fear and rare, extreme examples does not make communities safer. Yesterday, I could easily have engaged in shock stories about children who are coerced, abused, violated and manipulated into committing crime, but this is not a media programme. We are not on a radio show. We are legislators in a legislative House. Where were the datasets? Where was the evidence? We do not need anecdotal shock stories. The Chamber should be better than that. The amendments were repeatedly presented as a choice between victims and children: that is a false choice. A better system would support both.

Ultimately, the debate was overtaken by something more fundamental. I will make a brief comment on the petitions of concern. Members are entitled to disagree with me, my colleagues and others. They are entitled to vote against the amendments. That is democracy; it is what we are all here for. However, what happened here was not simply about disagreement. A small group of Members, in effect, used a veto designed to protect minority rights in order to prevent the House from making a decision. The petition of concern was used to block a democratic decision of the House. That disregards my vote and that of 17 other Members from my party and Mr Carroll just because we do not fit into a nice wee binary box. How is that fair? How is that just? We are talking about a Justice Bill. I have said before — I said it in my Member's statement — that social justice is at the heart of my identity and my politics. It is one of the reasons why I tabled my amendment and why I was so angry at the petitions of concern.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member take a point?

Ms Mulholland: Yes. Go ahead, Brian.

Mr Kingston: The Member is a member of a party that championed the Good Friday Agreement, part of which is the petition of concern. Does the Alliance Party support the existence of the petition of concern only when it is used to protect the interests of the nationalist community and not when it is used to protect the interests of the unionist community —

Ms Mulholland: Brian, I hope —.

Mr Kingston: — as expressed by —

Ms Mulholland: OK. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: — the elected representatives of the unionist community?

Ms Mulholland: Brian, you have worked with me on Belfast City Council and on the Communities Committee. Do you genuinely — sorry, I will speak through the Chair. Does the Member for North Belfast genuinely believe anything of what he has just said? Does he believe that I would agree with a protective mechanism that only protects nationalists? My party has not engaged in a petition of concern — the leader can correct me if I am wrong — since 2016. We have campaigned for reform because we believe that it has been misused. The intent in 1998 of the Good Friday Agreement has been lost.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Absolutely.

Mrs Long: The Member will be well aware that the last time on which a member of Alliance signed a petition of concern was to do with a debate on abortion. To be fair, it is not often that I disagreed with my colleague Anna Lo, but I did on that occasion: I would not have signed it. David Ford spoke against her signing it because we had said long before 2016 that we wished to see reform of the institutions, with the vetoes and the petition of concern being removed. Part of the impetus for it becoming a bigger issue was that they were being thrown around like confetti at one stage in the Assembly, to the point where nothing could get done. People pre-signed them and all sorts of nonsense. That, at least, is gone, but they are still not being used for the purpose for which they were intended.

Brian mentioned unionists and nationalists. Will somebody explain to me how anything that is proposed in the amendments relates more to a unionist or a nationalist; a Catholic, a Protestant or somebody who is neither; a Hindu; or a Muslim? Explain it to me like I am a child, because I do not see where anybody's rights are being offended by what has been proposed.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you. I will move on, because we have talked quite a bit about the petition of concern, but I will let the Member for North Belfast know that I do not support just one or the other. That is not in my nature, and it is not my frame of reference. I do not know how many more times that I or other members of my party can make that clear.

I admit that it feels as though every argument and every piece of data and evidence have been wasted. I hope that we will see movement, perhaps in the next mandate. However, I expect the DUP to row in behind the calls for votes at 16, now that we have heard clearly its enlightened view on the brain development of young people. If you can be criminalised at 10, you can absolutely put your tick in a box six years later. Thank you very much.

I want to see Members pushing hard for better relationships and sexuality education; better mental health and addiction services for young people; better investment in early years and family support; more effective and efficient poverty interventions and welfare support; a serious commitment to prevention, rather than waiting until something becomes a crisis; and a system that recognises that real public protection does not come from criminalising young people or children but from intervening earlier and supporting them better.

Finally, I say this to the organisations, practitioners and individuals who have supported the reform: your work is not wasted. I am sorry that the House has not been allowed to decide on the amendments tonight. I am sorry that you have heard your skills and expertise being diminished and degraded by some in the Chamber. However, I am not sorry for tabling the amendments, for making the case that we should interrupt cycles of offending behaviour or for arguing that we can and must do better for children and victims. I will never apologise for standing alongside the dozens of organisations that work on the ground with children, families, communities and victims. The amendments have been blocked, but the evidence and the need remain. The argument continues, and I look forward to continuing to make it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, valid petitions of concern have been presented for amendments in group 6, so the votes on those amendments and the other amendments on the Marshalled List will not be taken today. That concludes the debate on group 6.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We now come to the seventh group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 87, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 92 to 95, amendment No 103 and amendment No 129. Petitions of concern have been presented for amendments in group 6, so the votes on all subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List will not take place until a date after 29 June 2026.

Members, instead of calling the Minister of Justice as the sponsor of amendment No 87, which is the lead amendment in group 7, to move that amendment — I stress that the amendment should not be moved — I call the Minister to open the debate on amendment No 87 and to address the other amendments in the group.