Official Report: Monday 08 June 2026

Mr Speaker: It is unusual for me to address the House on Assembly Commission matters, but I inform Members that the Assembly Commission met this morning and formally agreed that a new electric vehicle (EV) system will be introduced, with payment being required for all EV charging points in the Assembly Commission's responsibility on a consistent basis. The arrangements for the retention of data will also be reviewed for the new system. Officials have been asked to take the matter forward as quickly as possible. In the meantime, it has been agreed that the use of EV chargers in the upper car park will remain suspended until the new system is in place. Officials will engage with Members who have been using the EV chargers to arrange reimbursement.

The current system was introduced in 2015. Decisions around the introduction and subsequent management of the EV chargers were operational ones that did not involve members of the Commission. Many Members have noted that, while they had seen the chargers, they were not aware of the arrangements for their use. However, the Assembly Commission has acknowledged this morning that legitimate public concerns have been raised. I thank Commission members for their cooperation in the meeting today and note the unanimous cross-party agreement to deal with the matter. A number of Members have tabled questions for written answer to the Assembly Commission on the matter, and that is the appropriate way for Members to raise further issues.

A Matter of the Day has been accepted. It will not be taken until after Members' Statements, because it was not announced in sufficient time.

Mrs Dillon: I call on the Health Minister to ensure that families with children with severe, complex, life-limiting conditions do not have to lose out on spending precious time with their beautiful children because they are fighting for services to which they should have had access. I thank the Children's Hospice for its amazing services and support for such children and their families, both during their life and, unfortunately, at their death.

In recent months, I have helped two such families, including the parents of two amazing, beautiful little girls with severe complex needs requiring 24-hour palliative care. Both of the girls passed away unexpectedly, having been supported by the Children's Hospice, but both families spent precious time during which they should have been able to focus on their girls on fighting for the services that should have been in place to support them. They had to reach out to me, as one of their elected MLAs, for support. I was more than happy to offer whatever help I could. However, those families should not have been in that position. The services should have been in place to care for those children and support their families. Lila Dripps-Weir, aged two years and 10 months, died in the Children's Hospice last Sunday in the arms of her parents, Hayley and Robert, surrounded by her brothers and sister. The Children's Hospice was the beacon of light that could be relied on when all other services failed Lila and her family. We need a system that responds to the needs of those families so that an extremely difficult situation can be made a little bit easier, and so that families can focus on looking after their children and being a family.

The Health Committee recently completed an inquiry into palliative care services. There are recommendations from that inquiry that would go some way to improving services. The Minister needs to lay out a plan for the implementation of those recommendations. We also need to see real and meaningful change in how social care is delivered to support families in the community. Children with life-limiting conditions and their families deserve the opportunity to be a family, make memories and do normal, everyday things. They should not have to spend endless hours on the phone or at meetings, begging for the help that they are absolutely entitled to. The system is failing them. We can, and must, do better. Lila's mummy, Hayley, is asking that we all, as MLAs and Ministers, do what we can to create change in Lila's name. The last words of my statement are hers:

Ms Forsythe: On this day last week, I spoke about the disgraceful Parades Commission decision, disregarding Scarva residents, on a contentious parade. On Saturday past, the outworkings of that decision, and the spectacular failure of the PSNI in policing the determinations, were on full display. High-level decisions put front-line police in a shocking position. Many political opponents have jumped on the bandwagon of attack and gaslighting, smearing others without any facts, but I was there, and here are the facts, if anyone wants to listen to them.

At 9.30 am, I arrived in the small rural village of Scarva to a police checkpoint, dozens of police Land Rovers and over 200 police. It was completely over the top. There was also helicopter and drone presence. It really upset the residents. The Parades Commission determined that the residents' peaceful protest was to be at Scarva bridge, but the police completely blocked the bridge and prevented those conducting their protest from actually doing so in accordance with the determination. After negotiation over where they were supposed to conduct their protest, the police finally said that they would close the road, and that the protest could be held on the road. A short time later, over a dozen police Land Rovers powered into the crowd, demanding that they clear the road and stating that, if they did not, they would be removed. Excessive force arrived, with water cannons, tactical support group (TSG), the dog unit and dozens of riot police lined up in the road to face a peaceful crowd. They would not speak to anyone. No one understood what was happening. There was no communication, and they antagonised everyone. Repeatedly, our MP, we as MLAs and our councillors tried to communicate with police, but to no avail, as they provoked the crowd. Then, without warning, the riot police, with their weapons in hand, ran towards the crowd. We, as elected representatives, stood between the police and the crowd. The police must have thought that we would move as they shoved into us. They thought that we would stand aside and let them ram the crowd of our people, but we did not: the DUP and UUP representatives stood shoulder to shoulder along that line. Clearly, once somebody senior in the police saw how the optics of their physically attacking two female elected representatives on the front line would look, they paused, and, finally, spoke to us. They were determined to ram into a crowd and start a riot on Saturday. We negotiated and agreed with the police that our elected representatives would stand amongst the people on the side of the law and peace. We did that, right along the line of the canal at the water's edge, but the media zoomed right in on our MP and vilified her for manning that front line.

The two-tier policing was on full display when the Palestine walk appeared: people on that walk unfurled banners and chanted at the crowd, but that was not policed at all. There were clear breaches of the determination. Those protesting rightly chanted back, because nothing was being policed.

I called on the police there and then, "What are you doing to police them? You rammed a peaceful, innocent protest". It was an absolute disgrace on the ground. I have never seen anything like it. The DUP unashamedly stands firmly —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up

Ms Forsythe: — with the unionist and loyalist community in Scarva and across Northern Ireland.

Ms Mulholland: This week marks Carers' Week 2026. This year's theme is "Building Carer-friendly Communities", and it could not be more timely. Across our communities, thousands of people care every day for someone, often quietly, often without recognition and, far too often, without the support that they need. Therefore, Carers' Week is a chance to say clearly that unpaid carers are not invisible.

The updated Carers' Week 2026 report shows that almost a third of unpaid carers do not feel that their caring role is understood or valued by their community. Nearly a quarter of current and former carers said that they had not been able to maintain a healthy lifestyle, and 22% said that they had been unable to take part in local groups or activities. That shows us that caring can still mean isolation. It can mean missing out on work, education, relationships, community life and, most important, looking after your own health. It also tells me that we too often wait until carers are at breaking point before the support that they need arrives. It is not fair, and it is not sustainable. We need to invest upstream. We need early intervention with carers before a crisis develops, and we need proper respite, replacement care and practical help before exhaustion becomes burnout. When we support carers early, we do not just improve their lives but help to protect the well-being, dignity and independence of the person whom they care for.

The report also shows where carers feel the gaps most sharply. Public transport was viewed as the least carer-friendly service in Northern Ireland, followed by financial services, workplaces and social care. Those are everyday systems that carers need to navigate just to get through the week. Building carer-friendly communities means practical change. It means all facets of civil society recognising that carers are part of each and every one of our communities. It also means legislation and policy that makes carers' lives easier, less arduous and much less lonely. We need a joined-up, cross-departmental approach that recognises that carers do not live their lives in departmental silos. Their needs cut across Health, Communities, Education, Infrastructure, Economy and Finance, so our response should do the same.

I want to highlight the Northern Trust's new carer support programme, which is being launched today. It includes walking groups and peer-support groups across North Antrim and beyond. It includes book clubs, journaling and a mix of in-person and online events for ease of access. I pay tribute to the trust's carer pathway steering group, which has shaped that programme for carers so that it feels supportive, practical and designed with carers in mind.

This Carers' Week, I pay tribute to every unpaid carer across Northern Ireland, including those who do not even recognise themselves as carers. If we are serious about building healthier, fairer and more compassionate communities, we have to build communities that recognise, value and support our carers not just this week but every week.

Mr Burrows: Government and politics should work for the hard-working people of our country, those who do the right thing, pay their taxes, obey the law, follow the rules and raise their families to the best of their ability. As I go round our great country, I begin to see that so many feel that it works the opposite way round. Working families who work so hard, juggling childcare, see no economic benefit to being out at work. We have farmers, businesses and householders who face bureaucratic obstacle after obstacle for trying to build a henhouse or get an extension or expand their business, yet, of course, we have statues to terrorists erected without planning permission and nothing is done. We saw that, of course, with that party during COVID: people were fined for walking their dog, but there are those who can flood the streets in a show of strength and nothing happens.

I speak to constituents all the time who have children with special educational needs and disabilities. They battle and battle for statements, yet there are people in our society — there are some whom other politicians do not want to talk about — who manipulate that system for their benefit to the detriment of those who really need it.

I am a great advocate of the Police Service. How many times have we seen law-abiding motorists who are taxed, insured and have their MOT get penalised for a minor infraction of the law from an automatic camera? Yet, when e-scooters are terrorising communities, the police cannot chase the e-scooter in case the rights of the suspect are infringed.

Our prison officers had to wait longer than anyone elsewhere in the United Kingdom to get a ban on smoking. Why? It was because the Justice Department put the rights of prisoners to smoke ahead of the rights of the prison officers to have clean air in their workplace. That sums up what has gone wrong in our society. When there is a balance to be struck between the rights of a perpetrator and the rights of a victim, consistently the victim's rights trump all. Ultimately, that will come when Ms Mulholland brings her amendment, which will mean that downblousing and upskirting and sexual assault and harassment in schools by anyone under 14 cannot be prosecuted. Under one of her amendments, someone aged 10 or 11 who replicated exactly the Jamie Bulger case could not be touched by the police, because the suspect's rights are far greater than the rights of the perpetrator. You can be a victim of a scandal, be that through the Post Office or in health, and you cannot get an inquiry, but if you are a family of a terrorist who went out to murder, you can get an inquiry at the drop of a hat.

All of that speaks to me about a society that is not standing for those who do the right thing and play by the rules and which does not properly stand for the most vulnerable in society. We should be laser focused on helping them and giving them support. As I go round the country, I feel a disconnect in society between government and politics and the people whom we are supposed to serve.

Ms McLaughlin: I take this opportunity to mark an important milestone in a piece of legislation on which I have been working for some time. Today, my regional balance Bill will complete its First Stage, formally beginning its journey through the legislative process. The Bill has been born out —.

Mr Speaker: Ms McLaughlin, take your seat, please. It is a general principle that you do not discuss matters that are going to be brought up later. As you are introducing the First Stage —

Ms McLaughlin: Sorry.

Mr Speaker: — of that Bill today, it is not really appropriate. If you have another subject that you would like to talk about, that is fine.

Ms McLaughlin: May I talk generally about regional balance?

Mr Speaker: You can talk generally, yes.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you. For too long, communities across Northern Ireland have experienced vastly different economic outcomes. As a public representative from Derry, I know that only too well. We see it in employment rates, economic inactivity and health outcomes. We also see it in the distribution of investment in our public services. While every region has strengths and potential, the reality is that that opportunity remains unevenly spread. That is not good enough. I wish to ensure that regional balance is no longer treated as an aspiration but becomes a core consideration in government decision-making.

I am trying to make this not about the Bill. It would require every Department to have due regard to regional balance in their policies, strategies and public services. It is about recognising that every community deserves a fair opportunity to succeed and that the Government have a responsibility to consider the regional impact of decisions that they take. I firmly believe that a stronger and more prosperous Northern Ireland is one in which growth is shared more fairly and where every part of our region can realise its full potential.

Ms Reilly: The apology issued last week by the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, to the families of those killed in the Springhill massacre was an important but long overdue acknowledgement of what happened on the streets of Springhill and Westrock in west Belfast in July 1972. For more than 50 years, the families of Father Noel Fitzpatrick, Patrick Butler, John Dougal, David McCafferty and Margaret Gargan have carried the pain of unimaginable loss while also having to fight for truth and justice. The findings of the Springhill inquest, and the apology that followed, confirmed what the families always knew: their loved ones were innocent and should not have been targeted. In apologising, the British Prime Minister accepted the findings of the inquest and expressed regret for the grief and trauma that were endured by the families. That acknowledgement matters.

Springhill cannot be viewed in isolation. It forms part of a wider period in our history that left deep and lasting scars across many communities. The actions of the British state forces in places such as Derry, Ballymurphy, Springhill and the New Lodge caused immense suffering and had profound consequences for generations of families. For many, the hurt was compounded by what came afterwards. Efforts to deny, justify or obscure the truth deepened the trauma and left families facing years of struggle simply to have the facts recognised, but those families never gave up.

Their determination made sure that the truth endured despite decades of obstacles and delay.

We have seen similar acknowledgements before. Following the Saville inquiry, the British Government apologised for Bloody Sunday, and, following the Ballymurphy inquest findings, an apology was issued to the families. Those moments mattered because they represented official recognition of wrongdoing and vindicated families who had spent years seeking the truth. The Springhill acknowledgement is significant for the same reasons. It establishes a record that cannot be denied or rewritten. It reinforces the principles that no state actor should be beyond scrutiny; that everyone must be accountable under the law; and that everyone deserves equal respect and treatment. Above all, today and every day, our thoughts remain with the Springhill families and all the families who have fought and are still fighting to get truth and justice. They have my utmost respect, and I acknowledge the determination that brought them to this moment. Their perseverance, dignity and courage made sure that the truth prevailed.

Mr Wilson: Yet again, we witness the staggering hypocrisy of Sinn Féin laid bare for all to see. It is a party that lectures everybody else about respect, equality and the rule of law, yet, when it comes to its own agenda, there is always one rule for Sinn Féin and another for the ordinary law-abiding citizen. We saw it when Sinn Féin defended and justified the erection of an illegal statue in west Belfast of convicted IRA terrorist Bobby Sands without planning permission. We saw it again when Sinn Féin refused to remove its illegal billboard at the Egyptian Arch in Newry. The House backed my motion that it should be removed; indeed, in an act that Penn and Teller would be proud of, that billboard has gone. It seems that planning law matters to Sinn Féin only when it can be weaponised against something that it dislikes. We now have Sinn Féin representatives submitting what appear to be coordinated copy-and-paste objections to a commemorative stone marking the centenary of Northern Ireland. Frankly, their objections are as pathetic as they are predictable.

Northern Ireland reached its centenary despite decades of terrorist violence and intimidation carried out by Sinn Féin's IRA bedfellows, who attempted to destroy this place through the bomb and the bullet. They failed. Northern Ireland endured, Northern Ireland remains and Northern Ireland will continue into its next century. In a mature and confident democracy, the fact that unionist MLAs wish to mark that historic milestone with a modest memorial stone should offend no one. The fact that Sinn Féin could not tolerate the memorial stone inside the Stormont estate and now cannot tolerate it outside Parliament Buildings makes clear the level of intolerance that Sinn Féin has for Northern Ireland. There is not much "First Minister for all" about that.

What is truly revealing is Sinn Féin's inability to show even the slightest respect for the history and constitutional reality of Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin demands respect at every turn yet consistently refuses to extend it to those who cherish Northern Ireland's history and its place in the United Kingdom. Most embarrassing of all, perhaps, is the spectacle of elected representatives apparently incapable of producing original objections of their own. The volume of near-identical submissions tells its own story.

The centenary stone is not about triumphalism. It is about acknowledging history, recognising the significance of Northern Ireland reaching 100 years and looking forward with confidence to the future. Sinn Féin may refuse even to utter the words "Northern Ireland" while sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but that refusal changes nothing. Northern Ireland is here, people love living here and people love visiting here. Its history will be marked, and no volume of coordinated copy-and-paste objections will alter that fact.

Mrs Mason: Over the coming months, County Down will proudly take centre stage in a remarkable celebration of culture, music and community spirit. From the county fleadh in Downpatrick, hosted by Lecale Comhaltas, to the Ulster Fleadh in Warrenpoint and culminating in the all-Ireland fleadh in Belfast, we have a wonderful opportunity to showcase the very best of our people, places and traditions. Thousands of visitors will travel to our towns and cities, supporting local businesses, filling cafes, restaurants and accommodation providers and bringing a welcome buzz to communities.

The fleadh brings people together. It fills our streets with music, colour and energy. Young musicians, singers, dancers and Gaeilgeoirí

will take to stages and competition halls carrying forward traditions that have been nurtured and cherished for generations. Seeing so many young people embrace and celebrate their culture is one of the most uplifting aspects of any fleadh and gives great confidence for the future.

Fleánna

give us an opportunity to celebrate our culture, our heritage and the incredible talent that exists in every corner of the island. The fleadh would not happen without volunteers. Behind every performance, competition and event is an army of dedicated people who give their time, energy and passion throughout the year. Their commitment is extraordinary, and they deserve enormous credit for making such events possible.

In Downpatrick, Lecale Comhaltas has worked tirelessly to prepare for the county fleadh, supported by local volunteers and community representatives. As the fleadh season gets under way on 15 June with Fleadh Cheoil an Dúin

, I encourage everyone to come along, get involved and enjoy the unique atmosphere that such events create. Together, let us celebrate the music, culture and community spirit that makes this place so special.

Mr Buckley: Over the past two days, we have seen political spin and opportunism go into overdrive. We have had elected representatives in the Chamber and beyond talk about Scarva who could not even spell the word. They talked about policing operations while they sat on their sofas, scrolling through social media. Meanwhile, there were targeted attacks on democratically elected politicians from the Democratic Unionist Party and other unionist parties who were on the streets in Scarva ensuring that a rightful, lawful act of protest that had been registered with the Parades Commission was able to go ahead. That was not good enough for some of the parties in this place. They have despicably targeted elected representatives and, in some cases, vilified and demeaned lady representatives who were on the front line, ensuring that there was peace and calm in Scarva.

Alongside colleagues, I have, for the past year, been engaging with the Parades Commission and the police on the tensions arising from the parade: a parade that deliberately and provocatively went through areas in which it was not wanted. Last year, it was banners of Hamas; this year, it was, "From the river to the sea". Those are the political connotations that go with that travelling circus wherever it goes. We have seen, in the United Kingdom, the consequences that those hate marches continue to push. It cannot be allowed to continue.

I witnessed first-hand the events in Scarva. I saw elected representatives' attempts to ensure that there was restraint. I saw a policing operation with police dogs, three water cannons and riot cops try to move in on democratic protesters who had the legitimate right to be there. If we had not intervened, there would have been a riot.

We must get some balance. The people of Scarva are law-abiding people, and, while political attacks may come, I will not stand for the decent, good people of Scarva and the surrounding areas being pulled through the muck and called "thugs" by political opponents. They are decent people; they are law-abiding people; and they deserve respect.

The SDLP is supposedly the party of civil rights; it is now no more than a bystander on social media. Sinn Féin is so drunk and high on power that it has forgotten the very people whom it represents. Alliance is sneering, condescending and high-browed; I would argue that it never had a community in the first place. As for the Democratic Unionist Party, we will unashamedly stand up and intervene for the people whom we represent, and no amount of sneering or degrading will stop us ensuring that their rights are represented.

Mr Gildernew: In recent weeks, we have seen once again the appearance of racist imagery in the Moygashel area of Dungannon. It was rightly removed by the PSNI, which also commenced a criminal investigation of it. That banner has, disgracefully, been re-erected with the clear intention of sowing division, hatred, prejudice and fear in our community. I call on all political representatives and community leaders in Fermanagh and South Tyrone to strongly and immediately condemn the re-erection of the banner and to call for its immediate removal. The presence of masked men at a children's park is a further sinister development that must also be called out and investigated. There is no place in our society for racism. It is time to take a stand against division and to stand up for inclusion and respect.

Over the weekend, we also saw a deplorable arson attack in the Shankill area of Belfast. I utterly condemn that. Targeting a building because of who owns it is despicable, especially when areas are crying out for jobs and investment. The owner of the building has lived here for more than 20 years, investing in our community and seeking to build something positive. My thoughts are with him and all those affected by that appalling incident. There is no place in our society for hate crime, racism or sectarianism in any form. All political representatives and community leaders should strongly condemn the attack. Those responsible for it seek to spread fear and division, and they do nothing but damage their own communities. I urge anyone with information that can assist the investigation to come forward and contact the PSNI immediately.

In Scarva, we saw more masked men seeking to intimidate a peaceful march and Carla Lockhart standing shoulder to shoulder with them. The spraying of slurry on roads in Scarva is darkly reminiscent of a previous era when civil rights protesters were sprayed with slurry on the streets of Dungannon. Attempts by the DUP to deflect are pathetic. People see through those attempts and see them for what they are. Again, we see the DUP standing on the wrong side, determined to drag us all back to the past rather than looking forward. I urge all political representatives in the Chamber to call out those acts for what they are: hateful, racist and sectarian. They belong to the past. Our job is to build a better future.

Dr Aiken: In a little over three weeks, the Alliance-supported parcel tax, coupled with the Alliance-introduced carbon tax on every maritime shipment into Northern Ireland, comes into force. The combined impact of those two measures on the Northern Ireland economy and consumers will likely be between £200 million and £250 million per annum. We would be delighted if those figures could be fact-checked or, indeed, even commented on by the Agriculture Minister, the Executive and the Economy Minister. However, judging by the responses to my questions for written answer, that is highly unlikely. We have asked the Northern Ireland Office, the Cabinet Office and the Secretary of State directly what the likely costs will be. Again, there has been no answer, apart from, "We're working on it". Unofficial messages from Brussels are that the costs are undefinable. Given that we are in a negotiation tunnel for the new UK-EU agreement, do not expect any answers soon. The United Kingdom's official line in Brussels is that His Majesty's Government will be seen as faithful implementers of all existing agreements.

There is still no answer to where the £200 million Irish Sea border tax will go. Will it go to Rachel Reeves's coffers or the Northern Ireland Executive, or will it pay for the new Irish Sea border infrastructure, including the very expensive sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) structure at Larne? His Majesty's Government's EU Relations Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds has also given us no answers. Why should he tell 1·9 million British consumers who are of absolutely no interest to him?

In 'The Times' today, he states that he is working tirelessly on the UK-EU reset. That will, he hopes, involve changes to the SPS agreement; rejoining the EU internal market for electricity; changes to carbon trading and — this has been said very quietly — opening up a youth movement scheme between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union.

With talks clearly at a critical stage — when are they not? — between Nick Thomas-Symonds and the EU, the added cost to Northern Ireland from the Alliance parcel tax and the Alliance maritime fuel surcharge, for which, remember, Scotland has achieved a derogation, is clearly the price that has to be paid for appeasement to an EU that, quite frankly, could not care less about us. The least that the Secretary of State could do is tell us how much the latest round of keeping Brussels happy will cost us and just where the money will go. Maybe we will just get a press release along with a £5 duty bill from HMRC when all our Temu parcels arrive.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements. We now move to the next item of business, which is a statement from Mr Carroll on the Matter of the Day. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker will chair this item, as I have already spoken on the matter. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry Carroll has been given leave to make a statement on the racially motivated attack on the former Shankill Gospel Hall, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should indicate that by rising in their place and continuing to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has concluded.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Speaker's Office for selecting this important Matter of the Day.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, a former gospel hall on the Shankill Road was burned to the ground by a fire that was deliberately set. The building had been bought by a family who intended to open a food shop and bring a much-needed service to the people of the Shankill. The incident is being investigated as a racially motivated hate crime. The man at the centre of the tragic incident has lived, worked and contributed here for almost 20 years. He put his life's savings into the building that went up in flames, and Belfast City Council and the Executive should step in and support him financially at this time. Today, I say these words to that man and his family: you are welcome here; you are part of the community; and this Chamber values your input in Belfast and beyond.

It has to be said that, unfortunately, the fire did not come from nowhere. For weeks, poison was pumped out online, with cowards filming videos in which they sneered at so-called "foreign food" and warned that there would be an influx of people. There were attempts to intimidate the family before the shop even opened. Incitement came first, and arson followed. Guilt for the crime is shared by those who struck the match and those who stoked the hatred. A special mention must go to TUV councillor Ron McDowell, who repeated great replacement theory nonsense that a shop would change the character of the area.

The fire is, unfortunately, not an isolated event; it is the latest in a series. The Assembly cannot ignore the fire in the Shankill or any of those other events. Unfortunately, racist hate crime in the North has reached record levels. Four race hate crimes are reported to the police every day. Racist violence is spiralling out of control. Just a few days ago, the Assembly heard that migrant people are stockpiling food because they fear another summer of pogroms and racist violence. What does that say about this society and where it is going?

I represent West Belfast, including the Shankill. The man who was trying to open the shop is not the enemy of the people of the Shankill or anywhere else, be they Protestant, Catholic or neither. The system that denies jobs, housing, hope and investment to the people of the Shankill and the Falls is the enemy, and its biggest defenders in this place are often the unionist parties. I condemn and stand against the racist violence. I welcome everybody who comes here, be they migrant, Muslim or anything else. They are welcome on these shores, they contribute to society, and they are very much part of its fabric.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for West Belfast for bringing the Matter of the Day to the Chamber. I associate myself with a lot of the remarks that he made.

What happened to this gentleman and his family on Saturday was wrong, and I welcome the condemnation from across the House and society. A lot of the commentary has referred, in good faith, to the fact that the gentleman has been here for almost 20 years, that he has worked hard and that he buried his life's savings into the potential business, which has all been scuppered by the disgusting racism that was on show during the early hours of Saturday morning. However, it is important to remember that a person's worth is not measured by the financial contribution that they make. Nobody, regardless of their background, race or religion, should be subject to violence, intimidation or abuse of any kind. Nobody should have to justify why they deserve to be here. We should have a migrant population in the North of Ireland that feels free and safe to go about their business without having to give rationale as to why they should be allowed to live peacefully. As the summer continues, I hope that, across the House, we show that we are a welcoming community and that we have a place here for everyone.

Mr Kingston: I join others in condemning the appalling arson attack on the former Shankill Gospel Hall in the early hours of Saturday morning.

After closing five years ago, the hall was bought recently by a couple who are originally from India, with the intention of turning it into a grocery store specialising in Indian foods. As the Assembly Speaker said this morning on the radio, he and I met the owner some weeks ago at the invitation of Dr Singhal, the chair of the Indian Community Centre, to hear of his plans for the building. Regrettably, some people, mostly from outside the area, made it their business to stir up opposition to the proposal, with social media posts containing false information and suggesting that such a store should not be allowed on the Shankill Road.

On Saturday morning, I was passing the premises when out for an early morning run when I noticed a police car outside after the fire had been extinguished. I had to ring the owner to tell him the devastating news of the fire that had occurred on his premises, and I met him on-site later that day. He is, understandably, in deep shock at what has occurred and does not know how to proceed. I have been liaising with various statutory agencies and community representatives on his behalf, and I will continue to do so. The majority of people in the Shankill are appalled by the attack. To be clear, there are many stores along the Shankill Road that are owned by people from outside the area, including from overseas. That is quite normal, and they are supported locally and by the many people who visit the area to avail themselves of the shops. Indeed, that would not have been the only international food shop on the Shankill Road.

Those behind those inflammatory social media posts bear considerable responsibility for what occurred. I spoke to one on Saturday morning, who made a video of himself talking about the arson attack. I agreed with him that it is disappointing to see a church closing in the area and being repurposed, which has happened to many churches. I asked him whether he attended church himself, and he said no. Sadly, that is part of the reason why churches are closing and being repurposed. Whatever concerns people have, they should raise them with community and elected representatives. I will always listen to their concerns.

There are many people working on the regeneration of the Shankill Road to bring derelict buildings back into use and to maintain shops along the road. To have a former church building and future shop burned totally undermines that work and is setting back progress. It is a depressing crime, and I urge anyone who has information about the arson attack to bring it to the police.

Miss McAllister: Another racist attack in our community in Northern Ireland and, this time, a premises completely and utterly gutted. It was supposed to be a grocery store to bring investment into the area, create jobs and bring integration in the Shankill Road area. As many have said, the store was set up by a man who was originally from India. I reckon, and many others will agree, that it would not matter had Northern Ireland been his home for 18 years or 18 minutes; that was of little value to the people who carried out the attack.

The attack did not happen in a vacuum. It happened after social media commentary about the shop, with agitators attempting to whip up tensions by creating a racist narrative around its future opening. We saw that commentary continue after the attack. Indeed, the gentleman himself said that he heard people jeering and cheering as they noticed that the shop business was on fire. Those responsible for the attack certainly have no regard for his life or for any human life or property, and they must face the full consequences of their actions.

Like many others in the Chamber, I share the concerns and fears of the Indian community and other minority ethnic communities across Northern Ireland that the attack is just the latest in a string of racially motivated hate incidents. They fear for their lives.

Let us be honest: it does not start with the burning down of homes or businesses. It starts with disdain through looks, slurs, turning a blind eye, signs of "Not welcome" and "Locals only" and claims of "legitimate concerns".

It is particularly depressing to see such incidents happening in my constituency of North Belfast. Whether it is in the form of an arson attack, a racist mural, a poster or threatening graffiti that targets minority groups and anyone who seen to be providing support to those communities, absolutely every person — not only in the Chamber but in society — has a role to play in calling out that hate rhetoric and standing with the ethnic minority members of our society.

Over recent summers, we have seen growing racial tensions on the streets of Belfast and Ballymena. We have seen that tension erupt into trouble on the streets and people being driven from their homes. People are fearful for their lives, livelihoods and families. It is time that we all stood together, dialled down the rhetoric and understood that Northern Ireland can thrive as an open, welcoming and inclusive place for everyone.

Mr Burrows: I condemn unreservedly the vile arson attack on the premises of a former gospel hall. The gentleman who was trying to build a business, create jobs and provide a service is the polar opposite of those who whipped up hysteria and those who attacked his shop. They are not patriots, and they do not have legitimate concerns. They are cowards. If they are involved in paramilitaries, they are not loyalists, because they are loyal to no one but themselves; they are gangsters. I wish the police well in catching them and anyone who incited it.

Just yesterday and in the past number of days, we have been remembering the service and sacrifice of real patriots who got on a boat and went and liberated Europe. Let it never be forgotten that 2·5 million Indians volunteered to fight for freedom; the largest voluntary army in World War II. Indians provide a wonderful contribution to our society. They are entrepreneurial and hard-working. I am proud to have a member of the Indian community in my party. He rang me about this incident. I am trying to meet the victim of it. Those who committed this act and those who incited it are literally — I do not like to use this language in the Chamber — the scum of the earth. I doubt that they have done a day's work in their lives. When they are arrested and brought before the court, will we get the normal sob story and probably too much of a slap on the wrist?

I make this clear to the Indian community and all communities in this society: there is one rule of law; we all live under it; and you deserve as much protection as anyone else. I say this to the people who did it, if they are listening: you are vile, contemptible people. You are the opposite of loyalists and the opposite of patriots. You are just the scum of the earth.

I wish that family all the very best. They are very welcome in Northern Ireland, and I look forward to meeting them if I can.

Mr Durkan: I stand here filled with absolute fury. I refuse to look at the ash and ruin of the weekend's racist arson attack in Belfast and treat it as just another sad news story. It is an outrage. It is a stain on our society and demands our total, unyielding anger. Let us call it exactly what it is: it is not just vandalism; it is terrorism. When thugs throw petrol bombs into buildings, they send a sickening message to our ethnic minority neighbours: you are not welcome here, and you are not safe here. Well, the SDLP and, I am glad to hear, every party in the Chamber has said that we will not let that stand.
I think of my many friends from different places who have made this place their home, especially, today, my Indian friends. They are people who are keeping our health service alive, looking after our vulnerable and elderly friends and neighbours and working hard and paying for the privilege. Some of them have looked me in the eye and asked whether they have a future here. How can we allow a small, cowardly minority of bigots to make our friends and neighbours live in terror? How dare they drag the name of this place — whatever name you give this place — through the mud?

We have spent decades crawling out of the darkness of conflict. We know exactly where hate leads, and we swore that we would never go back. Yet, here we are, in 2026, watching fires in our streets lit by racism, livelihoods ruined and lives turned upside down. Condemnation in the Chamber is easy. Words on a page will not put out those fires. The PSNI must hunt down those responsible, and the courts must hand down sentences that show that hate crimes will never be tolerated. No excuses. No complacency.

To the perpetrators, I say this: you do not own our streets. You do not speak for our people. You are losers, and you will lose. To the victim of the attack we send our support and our solidarity. I say to every person who has been targeted by such vile bigotry that we value you and will stand shoulder to shoulder with you to drive that hatred out of our home once and for all.

Mr Gaston: Not being from the Shankill, I thought that it was important to speak to someone with the Shankill Road in their DNA. My office reached out to my party's deputy leader, Councillor Ron McDowell, and asked whether there was any message that he wished to convey to the House. Unlike Mr Carroll, Ron works for the people of the Shankill Road every day

not just when it is politically convenient to put the boot into the local community.

Ron's response was, indeed, telling. The message from the Shankill Road today is that many local people are astonished that Gerry Carroll, Paul Maskey and others who have rushed out to comment on the issue even knew that the Shankill Road existed. At no stage have they sought to be part of the solution, yet now that something has gone wrong, they are the first in line to offer criticism. If Members are genuinely concerned about the future of those buildings and those communities, they should not wait until there is a crisis before taking an interest.

I utterly condemn the arson attack

, but those rushing out to gaslight the people of the Shankill Road —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Gaston: — are not showing leadership

—

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr Gaston: — and it does nothing to ease community tensions.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member has a right to be heard. It does not matter how obnoxious people are when on their feet. There have been plenty of examples of that. The Member still has a right to be heard.

Mr Gaston, finish your remarks.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I refute the claim that I am "obnoxious". When you sit in that Chair, you should be impartial.

I will finish on this: I say to those —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat. I did not say that you were obnoxious. I am making a general point, OK? [Interruption.]

I do not need any support here, thank you very much. I am saying that you need to be careful about making accusations and challenging the role of the Speaker. Please continue your remarks. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

In closing, I say this to those who value our churches: if you do not want to see places of worship close or pass into other uses, we must attend them, support them and allow them to be sustained.

Mr Gildernew: I have already made remarks linked to the issue in my Member's statement. First and foremost, I send my sympathy and thoughts to the victim of the attack and his family. Rightly, we discuss the issue, sometimes in abstract terms, but it will feel like a personal and frightening attack on them. A man is here trying to invest in the community and trying to do something positive, and he finds that his future lies in ashes about his feet. That is just disgraceful.

There is a thread between the issues that I raised this morning in relation to what has happened in Moygashel in my constituency, on the Shankill Road at the weekend and at Scarva. That thread is intolerance. That is what people need to challenge and call out, because the other thread that links those issues is a lack of leadership. Only six months ago — it might be less than six months — Gordon Lyons, as Minister for Communities, was found to be in breach of the standards expected of him in relation to other attacks on families. His Facebook post was found to have fallen short of the required standards for leadership, accountability and community relationships.

Let us be clear, Members: the lack of leadership being displayed here lets down not just marginalised communities and vulnerable individuals but your communities, because they deserve to see investment, diversity and inclusion. People in the Chamber have a responsibility to lead us to that future, rather than looking at a bleak past.

Ms Bradshaw: Like others, I strongly condemn the deliberate attack on the former gospel hall on the Shankill Road on Saturday morning. I thank Gerry Carroll for tabling the Matter of the Day.

It was clear that the building, which was no longer in use, was being brought back into use by a man who was refurbishing it, planning to create much-needed jobs and seeking to do something positive for the Shankill Road community. The PSNI has called the attack a racially motivated hate crime, and that fills me with such despair. I am disappointed that that man's ambitions have been dashed by such an act of cowardice and intolerance. Those responsible were trying to intimidate that businessman and those who were supporting the establishment of his business, and we cannot let them win. We must all stand in solidarity with him in the Chamber. I thank Dr Singhal, who is chair of the Indian community centre. He has shown real leadership and practical support in recent days. We should follow his example.

We all know people living on the Shankill Road who seek to bring up their families in peace and with respect for others. Those who carried out the attack did not do so in their name, and they should be thoroughly ashamed of their actions. There have been decades of amazing efforts by a range of community-based organisations to regenerate the Shankill Road and address issues of deprivation and disadvantage. That crime runs totally contrary to those efforts.

We have seen the pattern before. The former Presbyterian church on Donegall Pass in my constituency was set on fire on two occasions during refurbishment works by the Belfast Multicultural Association in January 2021 and April 2022. That came off the back of an orchestrated attack through misinformation in that community — that appears to be the case with the Shankill Road fire as well — despite the important work that the association was carrying out to support people from all backgrounds across South Belfast and beyond during the pandemic. In that case, the public were rightly outraged, and I am pleased to see the same response in this case in the Shankill.

We need a robust response by the Executive Office. It has responsibilities through the racial equality strategy and that directorate. We hope to see the results from the consultation process on its latest strategic framework, which ended last Wednesday, being transformed into concrete and robust actions to stamp out naked intolerance and racism. Likewise, it is important that we see the Executive Office bring a revised race relations order to the Chamber without further delay and hopefully before the summer recess so that we can ensure that there are adequate protections against discrimination and disadvantage for everyone in this place.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for West Belfast for tabling the Matter of the Day. We are having the debate with a depressing sense of resonance and symmetry, because the riots in Ballymena last summer, which scarred and shamed this society, began on 9 June 2025, which will be one year ago tomorrow. One year on, what has happened to mark that anniversary? A gentleman from an Indian background who brought his family here decades ago to contribute to this society and wanted to invest, create jobs and opportunity in a working-class part of Belfast has been burnt out of that opportunity.

The working-class people of that community have been burnt out of the opportunity of additional investment and jobs in their area.

Those decent people, the vast majority of whom will be utterly disgusted by the events over the weekend, have been dragged into the mire by a small number of people who are consumed by hatred and violence. As my colleague Mark Durkan said, we know that the end point of hatred in this society is nothing good, so we should be standing against it. However, it is depressing to see the double-talk and the talking out of both sides of the mouth from some in the Chamber and from some in our society more generally about this, as there was last year.

The rise of racism and far right nonsense online is an extraordinary risk. It is a risk to the constituency that I share with Paula Bradshaw, who just spoke, which is probably the most diverse on the island of Ireland, but it is a risk to all of us who want a society for our children and grandchildren and the people whom we represent based on respect, tolerance and equality. Instead, we are being dragged back into something much, much darker.

I want to challenge the idea put forward by some that there are legitimate concerns. As we discovered last year in Ballymena, when people of colour or people who are not from this part of the world are burnt out of their homes, when pogroms are launched against them, when they are told that they do not belong here or are not allowed here, the comment that we often hear from people who take no responsibility for those actions and then, of course, condemn acts of violence is that we should listen to the legitimate concerns that are being expressed. When someone has invested legally in a business in a disused building, there is no legitimate concern that justifies torching that building. I will say to people in the Chamber and outside it who have positions of responsibility to think about where we are going and the society that we want our communities and our families to live in —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — and step back from this grotesque rhetoric.

Ms McLaughlin: I beg to introduce the Regional Balance Bill [NIA Bill 35/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for a statutory framework to improve regional balance in Northern Ireland; to impose a duty on the Executive to develop, adopt, maintain and implement a framework setting out how disparities in regional economic performance and living standards are to be addressed across government; to confer functions on the Department for the Economy in relation to the preparation of the framework, its reporting to the Assembly and providing guidance and research; and for connected purposes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Well done, Sinéad.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: On the first day of the Consideration Stage on Tuesday 2 June, Members debated the amendments in group 1 and voted on clauses 1 to 3. Members then completed the debate on the amendments in group 2, which deal with child bail, child custody and live links, but did not vote on any group 2 amendments. The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice moved amendment No 41 at the beginning of the group 2 debate. We will now proceed to the vote on amendment No 41.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will take a seat, because this looks like being a long one.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to clauses 7 to 11, so I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses for the Question on stand part.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to clauses 13 to 19. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses for the Question on stand part.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We now, eventually, move on to the third group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 45, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 46 to 48, amendment Nos 70 to 73, amendment Nos 78, 88, 89, 123, 128, 130 and 132. Any links between amendments in the group will be indicated at the appropriate point. If all of that is clear — I am sure that it is — I call on the Minister of Justice to move amendment No 45 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move amendment No 45:

Mrs Long: Amendment Nos 45 to 48 create two new offences: participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group and directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group. Specifically, the proposed provisions are intended to create specific legislation for prosecuting an individual involved in criminal conduct linked to serious organised crime in Northern Ireland; criminalise those who, at any level, are involved in the commissioning and undertaking of serious organised crime; and pursue those who work together to commit or conspire to commit serious crimes that are intended to generate material benefit directly or indirectly. The legislation will provide a more effective approach to addressing the specific issue of involvement in organised crime, and the clauses define what constitutes an organised crime group and set out what it means to participate in the criminal activities of an organised crime group.

Some might ask why the amendments are needed. To that, I would reply that Northern Ireland is the only area of the United Kingdom or Ireland without bespoke organised crime legislation. While existing offences are utilised for prosecuting individuals for their specific offending, they do not accurately reflect the extent of offending or the potential larger role that those individual offences play in the overall operations of organised crime gangs. The provisions will bring us in line with neighbouring jurisdictions and ensure that Northern Ireland does not fall behind in its response to organised crime.

The new offences will be an additional tool for law enforcement to tackle organised crime, and the provisions, coupled with the associated significant penalties, will provide reassurance to the public by sending a strong message that no one is untouchable. I am sure that all of us have heard complaints from our constituents that, often, it is those on the fringes of organised crime who get prosecuted and those at the centre directing it who get away. This is a deliberate attempt on our part to ensure that those who orchestrate organised crime gangs and direct their operations are as amenable to justice as everyone in that organisation. I trust that the amendments will have the full support of all Members.

Amendment No 70 introduces a new clause and a new schedule to the Bill to repeal section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises rough sleeping, and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847, which criminalises begging. That outdated and archaic legislation criminalises some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Rough sleeping and begging are often linked to underlying issues such as homelessness, poverty, alcohol, drug addiction, poor mental health, sexual and domestic abuse, family breakdown, adverse childhood experiences and low educational attainment. I firmly believe that those complex and cross-cutting issues require a multi-agency response of support rather than the criminalisation of people simply because of their personal circumstances.

My decision to repeal without the need for replacement legislation followed a detailed review of existing legislation and public consultation on the legislative proposals. The aim of the review, carried out in liaison with the PSNI and preceding the consultation, was to determine how existing legislation was used and whether replacement legislation was needed in the event of repeal in the context of existing offences that could be used to deal with associated problematic behaviours that crossed the criminal threshold. No criminal behaviours encountered by the PSNI when dealing with those who beg or sleep rough were identified by the police as incapable of being addressed under the existing criminal legislative framework. The only gap left by repeal would be an inability to deal with what was referred to as "simple begging" through an out-of-court disposal or prosecution. In a modern society, no one should be criminalised for simply begging who is not otherwise behaving in way that would attract criminal sanction for people who are not begging. Poverty and destitution should not be a crime.

The public consultation that followed the review sought views on my proposals to proceed with the repeal without the need for replacement legislation. The majority of respondents supported my proposals, stating that criminalisation exacerbated the existing vulnerabilities of those who begged or slept rough. Some respondents were keen to change the narrative around homelessness and begging, with the view that, rather than punitive measures, we should focus our collective efforts on providing support to those involved in such street activity, and I concur with that. Many commended the police for their compassionate and supportive approach, which I echo unreservedly. Police initially adopt an engage-and-explain approach and direct those who rough-sleep or beg to wider partners in the statutory voluntary and community sector, a sector that I want to recognise for the incredible and difficult work that it does in providing support to some of the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society — work that is often done with limited public interest or support.

While I received significant support for my proposals, I am fully aware of the concerns of the business sector. Two Belfast business improvement districts, representing a large number of businesses in the city centre, responded to the consultation that repeal would require replacement legislation. I subsequently met retail representatives, as did my officials separately, to address related concerns and explain the rationale better. Where people begging or rough sleeping conduct themselves in a manner that is disruptive or causes a breach of the peace, there are laws to deal with that. Harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour are genuine policing matters, just as they would be if someone who was not begging or sleeping rough was behaving in that way.

The vagrancy laws that I seek to repeal with the amendment criminalise poverty, destitution and desperation. Poverty is not a crime. Being destitute is not a crime. Being desperate is not a crime. In this day and age, we must have better methods to address those who are in poverty or destitution, coping with trauma, addiction or poor mental health, and find themselves with nowhere to go but the streets. The phrase "There but for the grace of God go I" is a reminder of the role of chance, luck, upbringing and opportunity in people's life outcomes. I know that Members would agree that they would not swap their lives for those who find themselves in such desperation, but none of us knows what lies ahead for ourselves or, indeed, for members of our families. The response to seeing others in desperate straits should be one of compassion, not censure. It is Dickensian that people can be threatened with arrest simply for sleeping rough or asking for a cup of coffee or a sandwich in a town centre. My amendment will repeal those outdated and harsh laws, and I commend it to the House.

I now want to discuss two amendments that Paul Frew, Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston tabled, which are contingent on repeal of the vagrancy amendment. Their first amendment, amendment No 71, would provide for a new offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence and would replace the provision in section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 of being found on premises for any unlawful purpose, which, in the past, has been used to target individuals who were sleeping rough. A similar offence is provided for in the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and it was that provision that led the PSNI to raise concerns at Committee that a similar offence might be needed in Northern Ireland, although those concerns were not raised with the Department during the review.

The current section 4 offence is primarily used as a support charge in cases in which, for example, proof of burglary is not made out. It does not appear to have been used to arrest offenders; rather, it has been added to the principal charge in case it has not been made out in court. While I understand that the use of the offence in recent years has been declining year on year, I am willing to support the Members' amendment, provided, of course, that the vagrancy legislation is also repealed. I am concerned that, in the absence of repeal, such an offence would have unintended consequences and could be used simply to target those who sleep rough or beg. That aligns with the approach being taken by the UK Government, who intend to commence the new trespass offence in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 in tandem with the commencement of vagrancy repeal. The same approach can apply here.

The second of the amendments, No 72, relates to organised begging, which the Justice Committee raised as a particular issue during its scrutiny of my proposals. It was concerned about the PSNI's ability to deal with organised begging in the event of repeal. I highlight the fact that the existing legislation in the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 does not address organised or coerced begging. The 1847 Act criminalises only those who beg, not those who coerce others to beg. Therefore, my proposed repeal does not create a gap in that provision. There is current law to address such behaviour. Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 on slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and section 2 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which was introduced by Lord Morrow, are available to prosecute those who are found to have forced persons to beg or who have arranged or facilitated the travel of others with a view to those persons being exploited in that way. No evidence and no concerns have been raised by the police, the wider organised crime task force (OCTF), the modern slavery human trafficking subgroup or the NGO engagement forum, with which we regularly engage, that organised begging is an issue in Northern Ireland. That said, the amendment provides for a new offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain. Again, that mirrors provision in the UK Crime and Policing Act 2026 to be enacted on repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as it applies there. While I remain of the view that the provision of new offences should be developed only on the basis of an identified gap, I am willing to support the amendment, as it will not impact negatively on those who simply beg or sleep rough.

I turn to amendment No 73. I very much welcome Ms Connie Egan's proposal to repeal the blasphemy offences. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are archaic and have no place in a modern society. When I was in Parliament, I was the parliamentary champion of Open Doors. We remarked that, where there is freedom of and from religion, other rights are often better protected; yet, around the globe, many places continue to have and, indeed, to implement blasphemy laws that are often not just archaic but draconian. That is something that I have been committed to changing for most of my adult life and that we need to show leadership on in this corner of the globe.

I am fully committed to freedom of and from religion, so I am sympathetic to and support the removal from the law of those outdated and mainly unused offences. Northern Ireland is now the only jurisdiction in these islands that has not abolished the offence of blasphemy. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and religion without fear of prosecution, however remote that fear might be. I ask why any religion would continue to have or to need more protection under blasphemy law than others. I am grateful to Ms Egan for tabling her amendment, and I am happy to support it.

Amendment No 78, another provision tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston, aims to tackle the advertisement of sexual services. As Members know, I am fully committed to protecting victims from all forms of abuse and exploitation. Sadly, such deplorable behaviour is mainly targeted at women and girls. Advertising people who are trafficked or sexually exploited as though they are merely a commodity to be used and abused is completely unacceptable. The terrible thing is that many people do not know that they are being traded and objectified in that way. Pimps and traffickers create the profiles and collect the profits, while their victims are powerless and continue to be exploited and abused.

I therefore very much support the intention behind the amendment to strengthen protections for those who suffer such sexual exploitation, many of whom are also victims of human trafficking.

I will always support measures that are designed to help reduce the terrible harms and abuse inflicted on some of the most vulnerable in our society by some of the most despicable in our society. While I support the intention of the amendment in principle, I have some concerns about the intended scope of the offences, in their proportionality and where they may encroach on telecommunications law, which, as Members will recognise, falls within the reserved space. As such, the consent of the Secretary of State would be required for us to legislate on that. However, if the Member indicates that he is agreeable, I am willing to work with him between now and Further Consideration Stage to ensure that the amendment is an appropriate fit within our existing legislative framework and that it meets its aims in addressing relevant behaviours.

The last amendments in this group are amendment Nos 88 and 89, which, again, have been tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston and Ms Diane Forsythe. I begin by acknowledging the intention behind the amendments: to introduce the corollary of Ruby's law in Northern Ireland, with a view to strengthening domestic abuse legislation by explicitly recognising harm or the threat of harm to companion animals as a form of coercive control. I recognise that that is a growing area of concern and have met, for example, the Links Group, which includes the Dogs Trust, Cats Protection and others. I am aware of the work that it is doing with the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) to raise awareness in both professions of the linkages between harm caused to animals — companion animals and, indeed, farm animals — and domestic and sexual violence and abuse. I very much recognise Members' concerns about the role that pets and animals more generally can play in patterns of domestic abuse and coercive control. There is no doubt that threats against animals, harm to animals or animals being used as a means of intimidation can form a part of domestic abuse. Those behaviours are wholly unacceptable, and it is right that they should be condemned without any qualification. I therefore understand the desire to frame those matters explicitly in the legislative framework.

Amendment No 88 would make changes to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, with a view to enhancing protections for victims of domestic abuse by preventing anyone from perpetuating abuse by harming or threatening to harm a pet or animal. The amendment would require a court, when considering whether and how to make an occupation order or a non-molestation order (NMO), to have regard to the likelihood and likely effect of any such order or decision on the welfare of an animal cared for by the person whom the order is intended to protect or their child.

Responsibility for the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 falls to the Minister of Finance, who has advised that it is already implicit in the 1998 Order that a court must have regard to all circumstances when determining whether to issue an occupation order or an NMO. It is therefore already possible for animals to be referenced in such orders. However, it is the Minister of Finance's view that, on balance, making it an explicit requirement in the 1998 Order could serve to reinforce the legislation and therefore assist the courts in making the orders and victims when applying for such orders. While the Minister believes that further policy development and engagement with stakeholders would be beneficial, both he and I recognise the potential benefits of the amendment. As such, I will be supporting it, and I encourage others to do so.

Amendment No 89 would amend the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to give effect to two separate key provisions. First, it would amend section 2 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021 to explicitly include harm or the threat of harm to an animal within the behaviours that constitute domestic abuse in the Act. As I have noted, I recognise that the threat of harm and harm to pets and animals can be used to perpetuate domestic abuse and coercive control, and I wholly condemn it. As an animal lover, I need no convincing that harm to pets and animals could be part of domestic abuse and coercive control. I have heard numerous stories from victims with direct experience of that kind of abuse, who have written to me and met me. However, for that reason, I was determined to adopt the broadest possible definition of domestic abuse in section 2 of the 2021 Act. Section 2 of the Act does not provide an exhaustive list of behaviours, but rather was intentionally framed in broad and flexible terms to empower the courts to consider the full context of abusive conduct rather than relying on a prescriptive list. Ruby's law was originally conceived as an amendment to the English legislation, which had a prescriptive list that did not include the abuse of animals. In that context, it made sense for the abuse of animals to be specified. However, as our law is framed differently, with a more expansive approach that can include animal abuse, it would seem slightly contrary to have only animal abuse listed and specified as a form of abuse.

Neither harm nor the threats of harm to pets are explicitly listed in section 2 of the Act. We sought to make it absolutely clear in the explanatory notes, which provide insight into the policy intent, that the provisions extend to behaviour concerning animals, and we provided some specific examples of behaviours towards animals that could constitute abuse under the Act. The broader approach to defining abusive behaviour was previously accepted and supported by the Assembly when the Act was first passed. As such, I am satisfied that the existing framework already permits the courts to take account of behaviour involving animals where it is relevant. I have also not seen any evidence that the current legislation fails to address the issue in practice. Whilst I acknowledge Members' intent that explicitly referring to animals could provide additional clarity, there is a risk that rather than filling an identified gap in the law, the effect of that aspect of amendment No 89 would be to inadvertently place more focus and emphasis on one type of abuse than on others, which would not be helpful, and I do not believe that that is the Members' intent.

The second part of amendment No 89 would amend section 27 of the 2021 Act, which provides an enabling power for my Department to make regulations to give effect to protective measures for victims of domestic abuse, now commonly referred to as domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs). Members will be aware that DAPNs and DAPOs have not yet been introduced in Northern Ireland, and my Department continues to work with partners to develop a model that will be appropriate and effective in this jurisdiction, having first been informed by early lessons learned from pilots in England and Wales. I hope to introduce regulations and to launch a pilot DAPN and DAPO scheme for Northern Ireland towards the end of the financial year.

That aspect of amendment No 89 would allow regulations made under section 27 of the 2021 Act to provide powers for the court to include such requirements for pets as it considers relevant in a DAPO. I believe that that could help to prevent the use of harm or the threat of harm to pets to perpetuate abuse and/or coercive control over a victim. In addition, subject to amendment No 88 receiving the support of the Assembly, the provision will allow the regulations for DAPNs and DAPOs under section 27 to be framed in such a way that there would be a consistent and aligned approach with non-molestation orders and occupation orders made under the 1998 Order. There is a benefit in ensuring that those various protective regimes can operate consistently with one another, and I am supportive, in principle, of that aspect of amendment No 89.

Given that it is important to have consistency, we need to look at how we handle amendment No 89. The first part of the amendment is not helpful, but the second part is very valuable. Whilst I support the intention behind amendment No 89, and of the proposed amendment to section 27 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, I am concerned about the unintended consequences of the amendment to section 2 of the Act. However, again, if the Members who brought the amendment will undertake to review the provisions and amend them at the Further Consideration Stage to remove the changes to section 2 of the 2021 Act, I would be content to give it my support today.

That is all that I wish to say about the amendments in the group, and I look forward to hearing from those who have tabled complementary or competing amendments in those policy areas. I look forward to a healthy debate on those matters.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice, Mr Paul Frew, I remind Members that we will suspend the debate or take our ease just before 2.00 pm to facilitate Question Time.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. It will come as no surprise to you that I will get a wee break from my speech during Question Time before continuing with it thereafter. I know that my speech will be riveting and that you might not be able to sustain Question Time with the excitement.

I begin my remarks by saying that I thought that the first day of this debate was very good and very productive. It showed that we can work together as a Department, a Minister, a Chairperson, a Committee, an Assembly and all who take part in that. I commend the House for the debate that we had last Tuesday on the first two groups of amendments.

I will begin my comments on the ministerial amendments in group 3 as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice. I will then speak in a personal capacity. As the Minister outlined, amendment Nos 45 to 48 add four new clauses and a schedule to the Bill that define what constitutes an organised crime group and what it means to participate in the activities of an organised crime group. The amendments also create new offences of participating in and directing the activities of an organised crime group. The amendments were broadly supported by all the respondents to the Committee who commented on the proposed clauses.

The concerns expressed mainly centred around the potential exploitation of children and the vulnerable by organised crime groups and the need to ensure that they are not treated purely as perpetrators of crime, as they could, in fact, be victims themselves. The children's rights group Children in Northern Ireland suggested the need for statutory recognition of child criminal exploitation and a welfare-first approach, rather than criminalisation. The Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland raised similar issues. In response to such comments, the Department clarified that the recent Westminster Crime and Policing Bill created a specific child criminal exploitation offence that was being extended to Northern Ireland. The Department said that the introduction of such an offence should act as a deterrent to gangs from enlisting children in their criminality, as they would be charged as child exploiters, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. The House will no doubt be aware of the concerns raised across the UK about the use of children and young people in so-called county lines and other organised crime. Protections that may be afforded by a specific offence are therefore welcomed. The Human Rights Commission highlighted the risk that people who are victims could be prosecuted under the legislation, particularly women who are subject to coercive control, children and victims of trafficking and modern slavery.

The Department advised that some thought had been given to how the legislation could be drafted so that children, women or vulnerable people were not innocently captured by the offence — for example, by considering the inclusion of statutory defences, which the Department tested with justice partners. It was determined that that is already covered by the common law defence of duress, which could potentially apply where there has been evidence of threats. In addition, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 provides a statutory defence in relation to certain criminal offences. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People queried why, through the amendments, the Department was seeking to introduce penalties that are different from those in other jurisdictions and how the Department envisages the new offences working for cross-border organised crime in the context of exploitation and trafficking. On those issues, the Department advised that it was apparent that neighbouring jurisdictions have their own nuanced version of serious organised crime offences. The proposed offences in the amendments that we are considering today are akin to those in neighbouring jurisdictions while also taking into account the unique challenges in Northern Ireland. Having considered the evidence received and the Department's response to the concerns raised, the Committee concluded that it was content with the proposed ministerial amendments.

I turn now to amendment No 70, the repeal of public order offences via new clause 23A, and amendment No 128, the new schedule associated with it, which I will call the Minister's "vagrancy amendments", just to make things easier. The Committee heard detailed evidence on those amendments and spent some time considering them. Having received the text of the Minister's vagrancy amendments in December 2024, the Committee included them in its call for evidence on the Bill. The amendments aim to repeal section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847. I think that we can all question the continued use of such antiquated legislation. Indeed, if you read the 1824 Act, you will see that some of its language, with references to "rogues and vagabonds", is certainly not what we would use today.

The Committee was advised by the Department that there has been considerable criticism by homelessness support organisations, the media and some of the good folk in the Chamber that that outdated legislation criminalises homelessness and begging. The Committee's call for evidence attracted universal support for the notion that simple begging should not be an offence and that more work was needed to address the wider social and societal issues that lead to begging and rough sleeping. The Committee heard the view that rough sleeping should be considered a crime of "status", which, in the words of Professor Kevin Brown, is:

However, some respondents who supported repeal expressed the view that simply repealing the legislation may leave a gap in the powers for the police to deal with certain other behaviours that can arise from begging and rough sleeping. The Committee heard from the Simon Community and Homeless Connect that it is not appropriate to criminalise someone for simply begging or sleeping in the street. They supported the PSNI's decision not to prosecute for rough sleeping despite the powers being available to do so. The witnesses from Homeless Connect stated that they recognised:

They pointed out, however:

The Committee heard that view echoed and expanded in other evidence. Retail NI, for example, agreed with the repeal of the legislation but felt that there was a need to address replacement powers for when rough sleeping and begging crossed over into problematic or criminal behaviour. Again, it was clear that this was a complex issue.

Some of the most detailed and considered evidence that the Committee heard on the issue came from Professor Brown, who is a criminal law specialist at Queen's University Belfast. Professor Brown advised that he fully supports the repeal of the relevant section of the 1824 Act and of the 1847 Act, providing his view that a complete ban on begging and rough sleeping would criminalise a person for being destitute or without shelter. He went on to explain that, in most cases, begging is passive and harmless but that, in a small number of cases, it can become:

Professor Brown argues:

Professor Brown did not consider that existing legislation would appropriately fill that gap and that repeal might leave us without a replacement. He argued that there should be:

He provided the Committee with the draft text of an amendment for begging causing harassment, obstruction or public order concerns. He also pointed out that a further unintended consequence could be the gap on trespass with intent. The Committee forwarded Professor Brown's comments and suggestions to the Department for its views. The Department responded to advise that it did not support the proposals:

The Department also advised of the potential interference of the proposed measures with article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

The PSNI, when giving its initial evidence to the Committee in April 2025, advised that it did not believe that simply arresting people for begging was the appropriate pathway or response to the issue. It also said that, where it feels that there is no alternative to a criminal justice process, there were other offences that could be used. Those include disorderly behaviour, breach of the peace, public nuisance or provocative behaviour, to deal with problems in the behaviour of those unfortunate enough to end up on the streets. However, in subsequent evidence that was given in November 2025, the PSNI indicated some concerns that repeal without replacement legislation may leave some gaps, noting that provisions for alternative offences had been implemented elsewhere in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The PSNI suggested that powers similar to clause 10 of the Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced, in England and Wales, and section 11 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 could be used to plug the gaps for trespass with intent. Clause 11 of the Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced, could be used to tackle the facilitation of begging for gain.

In our deliberations, it quickly became clear that all members supported the repeal of the antiquated legislation. However, we had to decide whether that could be done with or without putting replacement legislation in place. The Department wrote to the Committee on 27 February to ask whether any agreement had been reached and whether the Committee proposed to make any amendments in that area. The Committee had draft amendments drawn up to incorporate elements of Professor Brown's draft text along the lines of clause 10, the offence of trespassing with intent to commit criminal offence, and clause 11, arranging or facilitating begging for gain, in the Westminster Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced, which is now an Act.

The Committee considered the draft text of the amendments in March. Members were in agreement that the 1824 and 1847 legislation should be repealed, but we could not reach a consensus on the way to do that. Formal proposals were put on two options: to proceed without replacement legislation or to proceed with replacement legislation. However, as the votes for and against each proposal were equal, both proposals fell. Therefore, while it was keen to see the legislation repealed, the Committee did not reach an agreed position on an amendment by which that should be done.

That ends my speech as Chairperson of the Justice Committee. I will make comments as an individual MLA and spokesperson for the DUP. However, I suspect that you will want me to stop now if that is in order.

Mr Speaker: Yes. We will take our ease for the next two minutes or so, and will then move to Question Time. Thank you for that, Mr Frew. Members, please take your ease for a moment or two.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): The high street task force concluded its work when it published its report in March 2022. It made a number of recommendations, which have been taken forward by ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities, Department for the Economy, Department of Finance and Department for Infrastructure. We recognise the significant pressures facing small businesses here, particularly the impact of rising costs of food and fuel, and the challenges that they create for the sustainability and vitality of our high streets. In response, the Department of Finance has extended support through the small business rate relief scheme, which supports around 30,000 small businesses, to 2026-27.

Local councils also play a vital role in supporting and revitalising our high streets. The £45 million regional balance fund supports councils in identifying and addressing specific economic challenges in their areas. It will be important to continue to engage with them, as key delivery partners, to ensure that we have thriving, sustainable high streets for us all to enjoy.

Mr Stewart: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. She will know that high streets in our towns and cities are under massive pressure. Rising rates bills, declining footfall and changing shopping habits are having a huge impact on those retailers. Given the cross-cutting nature of the work that she outlined and those recommendations, will she consider re-establishing the high street task force so that it has full oversight of the matter and can try to make a meaningful, positive impact on our high streets?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member raises an important issue about the challenges that we know are faced by our high streets. Many units on our high streets are now occupied by small businesses, and they are really struggling. Those small businesses are particularly hit by the rising costs of food and energy, as I indicated. Very often, those businesses survive on very small margins, and, when prices increase, that eats into their ability to do that and their sustainability. We recognise that they need support, but it has to be much wider than that particular grouping.

The task force's work has been completed, but that does not mean that the high streets do not require additional support and help. We are acutely aware of that. That is why growing the economy is a priority in the Programme for Government. Of course, each Department is taking forward those 14 recommendations, and we will continue to liaise with them, but we believe that getting the right, UK-wide support, particularly through the tax system, is critical. That is why we have been lobbying the UK Government hard to make sure that they move towards a position of our having a Budget that is fit for purpose for business.

Ms Murphy: Deputy First Minister, many businesses in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, especially those on the high street, are struggling at the moment, particularly with overheads. What additional support can be provided to address that?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. Again, we have to be particularly vigilant about that. We are aware that global events that are utterly outside our control impact on energy prices. We have been doing a significant amount of work — I think of the group that the head of the Civil Service set up — and regular monitoring to look at what is likely to be coming down the line. We are also participating on a UK-wide basis to push the UK Government on energy support schemes. We anticipate that additional proposals will be brought forward in the summer by the UK Government, but we want to make sure that those are fit for purpose for Northern Ireland and that we are included in the development of that policy so that the support can get to the businesses and people of Northern Ireland where and when they need it.
We are very aware of the issues, but, unfortunately, we are limited in what we can do, and we cannot control global events. When it comes to energy security and costs, we have, thus far, been subject to headwinds from elsewhere. We can, however, try to get our energy policy right. That is why, increasingly, we have been articulating not only our concerns but the opportunities that we feel exist, particularly around east-west connectivity, so that we make sure that we have stability of supply and support with costs, including for small businesses and those on our high streets.

Ms Forsythe: There is no doubt that our hospitality sector faces considerable challenges given the cost of doing business. Does the deputy First Minister agree with me that the UK Government should introduce a hospitality VAT pilot to reduce VAT in Northern Ireland and help revitalise that sector?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. Week in and week out, we see some of our favourite coffee shops, cafes, restaurants and bars closing because of the immense pressure that they are under. The cost of doing business is much too high in Northern Ireland and across the UK. We need the Chancellor to step up and ensure that there is a Budget that supports business and our economy. However, there are other things that we can do. I call on the Economy Minister to do what she can to support our businesses. I know that the Member wholeheartedly supports, as do I, the VAT reduction campaign. I raised that issue directly with the Prime Minister in our meeting with him. He engaged with us and promised to come back to us on the VAT reduction pilot for Northern Ireland. On the back of my engagement with Hospitality Ulster, and aware of all the good work that it has been doing, I indicated that organisations across the UK were content for Northern Ireland to be used for that pilot. That is important, because, as I said to the Prime Minister, the roll-out of that pilot provides an opportunity to evaluate it and determine its effectiveness in, importantly, protecting small businesses, many of which are the backbone of towns and villages across Northern Ireland.

Mr Dickson: Deputy First Minister, I appreciate your comments about the global effect on our high streets, the report that was delivered in 2023 and the actions that flowed from that. However, with the exception of rate reduction, it is genuinely difficult to see how those actions have hit home on our high streets. I think particularly of my home town of Carrickfergus where more businesses are closing down than are opening up and where there is dereliction on the high street. What support will the Executive give to my colleague, Minister Muir, on the Dilapidation Bill? Do you agree with me that that is one aspect that will help to revitalise our high streets?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. Tackling dereliction and dilapidation on our high streets is important. There is no doubt that that causes a sense of decay and decline in our villages and town centres. It puts people off from coming to sit outside a cafe — mind you, you will not sit outside a cafe in this weather — or visiting the various things that our towns have to offer. However, it is important to say that we have incredible businesses in all of our towns and villages. I often get the opportunity to visit small businesses that are doing their best. Many of them supply high-quality local produce or locally made products. We should be really proud of those small businesses, and we all need to go into our towns and villages and support them. Often, when we criticise the fact that shops are disappearing from the high street, we do not highlight the many that are still there and need our support. As elected representatives, we can highlight those small businesses, which are doing their best, and encourage people to go into our villages and town centres to support them.

Mr McGrath: The reality is that some high streets are suffering more than others for whatever reason, be that local authority neglect, their location or because businesses have opened elsewhere. Is there a way, via the high street task force, to provide extra bespoke assistance for towns — Downpatrick could be on that list — that are suffering more than others?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member is absolutely right, but it is important that we do not punish success. The towns and villages that are doing well have put in a huge amount of effort, but there is no doubt that they still require additional support. The way that we shop is changing — we are all guilty of it — and that is having an impact. Businesses on the high street are often disadvantaged because they pay for rent, rates, electricity and everything else, while online businesses do not have those overheads.

It is really important that we start to look at what the high streets of the future will look like. That is about much more integration. For example, I would like to see the Department of Finance looking at public-sector estates to see what support it can give to our towns. I am always happy to welcome the Finance Minister to Lisburn, for example, where there are great opportunities to put more public-sector jobs in the city centre to support it.

We have to be realistic, however. People's behaviour and the way that they shop have changed, and our high street needs to change to keep pace with that. It has not done so thus far, but support from government, Departments and elected representatives will be critical in making sure that we can create the new, re-envisaged and fit-for-purpose high streets of the future.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Members can be assured of our commitment to making devolution work. We have an agreed Programme for Government and have committed over £230 million pounds over the next five years to a range of innovative projects to support and drive transformation across our public services. It will make a real difference, but much more needs to be done. The reality is that the current funding package for Northern Ireland does not match the scale of the challenges facing our public services. Our firm view is that the current fiscal position is unsustainable and that Westminster can and should do more. We have presented a case directly to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and will continue to make the strongest possible case for a funding settlement that reflects local needs and supports the sustainable delivery of public services.

Miss McIlveen: Does the deputy First Minister agree that the public expect more from their political leaders than simply blaming others for all the challenges that we face, and that we can do things at a devolved level to put our finances on a more sustainable footing?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. That is such an important issue and goes to the heart of the fact that we in Northern Ireland are the custodians of each Department. I have often said that it is not just about how much money we get; it is about what we do with it. People out there are really frustrated when they see some political parties and Ministers constantly blaming problems on the Brits, the Brits, the Brits. They want us to step up and take some responsibility. That means driving efficiency and effectiveness in all Departments. It also means driving down waste where it occurs. There is still too much waste in our system. We do not have the finances or resources available to facilitate any waste or inefficiency in our system. The Member is absolutely correct. I know that she feels strongly about the issue. We must step up to the plate, step forward, do what we can and be responsible. We cannot simply just blame it on the Brits.

Ms Ní Chuilín: To continue the theme of undermining public confidence and public effectiveness, I ask you this, Minister: why do you and your DUP colleagues continue to block the 'good jobs' Bill, particularly the measures for parents whose babies require neonatal care and, indeed, other measures that will support workers who are struggling with the cost of living?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Since receiving the Bill, I have taken time to go through it, line by line and clause by clause. Last week, I had a useful meeting on it with officials from the Department for the Economy. It is absolutely clear that Members across the House support a number of things in the Bill, such as neonatal parental leave. However, it is absolutely wrong for some in Sinn Féin and on the Benches opposite to use the issues on which, they know, there is consensus to try to bully and bounce the DUP, and me in particular, into supporting other ideas in the Bill that are, frankly, half-baked. For example, the clauses on trade union access are the most aggressive and expansionist not just across the UK, Ireland and the European Union but across the globe. The Minister had to go to New Zealand to find such a regime to put forward. It is also clear that there is not a single business in Northern Ireland that supports the Minister's proposals.

There are many questions that the Minister cannot answer. She says that everything will go into a code of conduct. That code of conduct has not even been started, never mind being available for us to look at. I advise the Member to look at some of the detailed proposals, and I say this to the Minister for the Economy: if you want to introduce clauses on neonatal care, do so. Put them in a separate piece of legislation, and I promise the House today that I will clear it by urgent procedure so that it can come to the Chamber and get going. The Minister knows that there is no consensus on some of the clauses. She can introduce a trade union Bill if she wishes, but do not use important issues such as neonatal care to manipulate anybody.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The provision of funding for victims and survivors' groups remains a key element of the Executive strategy for victims and survivors. We are committed to ensuring that victims and survivors receive the support that they need. We also recognise and greatly value the vital role that those groups play in delivering essential support in our communities. Through the Victims and Survivors Service, the Department funds 38 groups across all programme areas, ensuring that services are delivered where they are most needed. In the previous financial year, a total of £12 million was awarded to those groups. However, we are aware of the pressure that those groups are under and that they are seeking additional funding in the current year due to an increase in demand. Whilst the draft Budget is still to be formally agreed, we have asked officials to explore options to enable the provision of further support.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, deputy First Minister, for your answer. The burden has been put on the sector to work with groups that deal with people who have suffered dramatically over the lifetime of the Troubles and up to the present time. Groups like Mid Ulster Victims Empowerment (MUVE), which I work with directly every week, do that great work. What more can you do to secure the money that they not just deserve but need to deliver those services?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for Mid Ulster for that important question. He is a great advocate for the victims and survivors' sector, particularly on this issue. There is not a week that goes by in which he does not raise the issue with me. He recognises the huge demand that there is on victims and survivors' groups, particularly in relation to mental health and support. More than that, I know that he cares deeply about what victims and survivors are going through at the moment.

There is no doubt that key initiatives such as the pension for severely injured victims, what is happening in the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) and the very public conversation about legacy legislation are all having a huge impact on victims and survivors, particularly in relation to their mental health. I am acutely aware that, when we created the historical institutional abuse inquiry mechanisms and structures, there was support for people going through that. It was a trauma-informed approach. There was mental health and counselling support throughout that process. However, we do not have that for many of the issues in relation to the legacy of the Troubles. That needs to be addressed, because that pressure is now being put on victims and survivors' groups. I commit to doing everything that I can to see whether we can get that much-needed additional resource to those groups. I recognise that they are looking at unprecedented demand and pressure because of this really important issue.

Mrs Dillon: Last week, the British Prime Minister apologised to the families of the five people who were shot dead by the British Army in Springhill in 1972. For 54 years, those families have been fighting for truth, justice and acknowledgement. Do you, as deputy First Minister, associate yourself with that apology and agree with the British Prime Minister's assessment that it is the duty of the state to hold itself to the highest standard when investigating state killings?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I have always made it clear that, no matter what the circumstance, I will always stand on the side of victims. Victims and survivors across Northern Ireland, including those whom the Member has referenced, have been denied justice for much too long. I speak to many victims and survivors, including many victims of terrorist organisations across Northern Ireland, who have never had justice. The hurt that they felt at the time of their loved one's murder is just as acute today. The continued denial of truth and justice to those victims continues to cause that pain.

The Member referenced the state, but I would say more than that: everybody has a responsibility to step forward. If you were a member of a paramilitary organisation or if you have justified the behaviour of paramilitary organisations or unlawful behaviour, wherever that comes from, that is simply wrong. People should step forward and try to give that help, support, truth and justice to the victims who have suffered the most.

Ms Bradshaw: We in the Committee for the Executive Office have received a lot of correspondence about the assessment of funding into the next financial year. In the arena of mental health support, what conversations have you had with the Health Minister to see whether the public service could pick up some of the weight in that regard?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I absolutely recognise that it is challenging for our mainstream health service to pick that up. At the moment, the services are not fit for purpose to get people the help and support that they need when they need it. The waiting lists are too long. I know that the Health Minister is looking particularly at that issue. It is part of the challenge that we face. If somebody is going through an application process in which they have to go through their experience again, that can be deeply re-traumatising, understandably so. That is even more the case when, often, they are trying to articulate the impact of that event on the mental health trauma and post-traumatic stress that they are going through. When they are at that point, they need that help almost immediately. If you go through a GP to get that support, you are likely to be waiting for a sustained period, sadly, unless you are at absolute crisis point. That is why victims and survivors' groups are seeing a significant increase in demand. From talking to some of the groups, I know that demand has increased by as much as 30% to 40% from people applying to some of those schemes.

There is a need there. We have always fought hard to protect the budget for victims and survivors from reductions or cuts elsewhere, but the reality is that, with rising costs, that budget is getting more and more squeezed. That is why I have been having a series of discussions to see what we can do, not just to work with the Health Department but, being realistic, how we can get additional resource to victims and survivors' groups.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the First Minister and deputy First Minister table an amendment to the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill to deal with the posthumous date? The Bill will, in its current form, do a real injustice to those who died before the stated date.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: First, I thank all of the victims and survivors who have campaigned so hard for the inquiry and the redress scheme. Many of those people, as the Member has highlighted, are no longer with us and will not get the benefit of the scheme. Those who are will, and that is why the scheme is set up in the way that it is. It does not deal entirely with posthumous claims. It is too late for those who, sadly, have passed away to get payments in acknowledgement for what they suffered. Some of their family members will be able to apply for that acknowledgement payment.

We carefully considered the issue in the Executive Office. We were advised about what happened in other jurisdictions. In the Republic of Ireland, for example, the posthumous date is 2021. We felt that that was not far enough back, so we went back to 2011, and we have been advised objectively by officials that that is the date on which a legitimate expectation could first have been raised. That is further back than any other jurisdiction, as far as I am aware. While it is, of course, a difficult issue, we have tried to be as generous as we can while prioritising, undoubtedly, those who have needs right now and ensuring that they get the most support possible.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We have written to the Prime Minister outlining the scale of the pressures on public finances and the implications for service delivery. The Secretary of State responded on 28 April on the Prime Minister’s behalf, reaffirming his view that funding is sufficient overall. However, our view is that the current fiscal position is unsustainable and that more should and could be done. We have sought a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss the issues further, and, of course, we have asked for an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister as well.

The Finance Minister continues to engage with the UK Government to underline the scale of the Executive’s financial challenges and to seek additional support to help to stabilise public finances. The Executive are united on this. We believe that the current allocation does not reflect our service pressures. Our focus remains on securing a fair, sustainable settlement while considering ongoing cost-of-living pressures.

Mr Harvey: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. You will be aware of the recently announced summer travel scheme for children in England as part of the Great British Summer Savings scheme. We are likely to receive a Barnett consequential from that. Has there been any discussion with Treasury following that announcement?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There is no doubt that that proposal has been welcomed by many people, but it goes only a small way towards supporting hard-pressed families. This is the reality that we face: the median income is lower in Northern Ireland than it is anywhere else across the UK. That means that our families, including working families, are most impacted by a rise in energy costs, for example, or any increase in bills. We must recognise that.

I will always have the backs of hard-working families. We recognise the pressures that they are under. The increases in childcare costs, energy bills and the cost of the petrol or diesel that they need to put into their cars to get to the places that they need to go are hitting families hard, hard, hard, and we need to be there to support them. I will continue to lobby the UK Government to provide more support and help to our hard-working families, but, of course, again, our Departments must do everything that they can to use the money that they get in the best possible way to support those families.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister outline what risks arise from Departments operating within contingency planning envelopes rather than an agreed Budget and how those risks are being managed?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. Again, it is an exceptionally difficult issue. I do not think that anyone around the Executive table does not want to have an agreed Budget. However, we have to weigh up the implications of agreeing a Budget that would be woefully inadequate to support front-line services. The moment such a Budget was agreed, accounting officers in Health, Education, Justice — every Department — would be telling Ministers that they could not spend what is required on vital public services. The impact of that on ordinary working families would be catastrophic, and it is not something that I am prepared to stand over. Of course, the current system is also inadequate. I do not want to be in a situation where we can spend only 45%, for example, of the allocation until July, but every Member needs to be aware of what would happen if a Budget were set with £1 billion-plus missing from what is required and assessed to be required to run our public services.

Mr Donnelly: I am sure that the deputy First Minister is aware that the extra spending required to run our divided society has been calculated at almost £1 billion a year. Could the case for more funding from the UK Government be improved if the Executive Office took more seriously the issue of the cost of segregation?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Executive Office takes seriously the cost of segregation. I have been a special adviser or a Minister in this Department for almost 20 years. In that time, one of the policy areas that I have worked on is Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC). It is not just about taking down the physical structures of division — for example, we had a signature project relating to the so-called peace walls — but about breaking down the barriers in people's minds and hearts. There have been hugely successful projects, including our Urban Villages initiative and T:BUC camps. Well in excess of 20,000 young people have been through those camps. They bring people together. Of course, it is not just a single approach. We need to address the issue across the piece, and I am fully committed to doing so.

The Member's point goes much wider than just that issue; it goes to everything that we do. I have said at the Executive many times that every Department should be doing a line-by-line assessment of its budget and making sure that the money that we have is being used in the best possible way. We do not have the luxury of having waste, inefficiency and duplication. We must get it right. It is not just about how much money we receive but how we use that money.

Mr O'Toole: Crisis? What crisis? We are two and half months into the financial year and no Budget has been set. We all agree — the Opposition included — that we want a maximum settlement from London. You talked about not having a £1 billion gap, but will you confirm that if you and your colleagues cannot or will not set a Budget, you will have to cut more than £1 billion on last year's Budget? Is that the legal position? If you do not set a Budget, you will have to cut services and wages and plunge this place into crisis. Is that the reality of the crisis that the Executive are creating?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The shortfall in the Budget this year is at least £1 billion, and you can try to find that in only two ways — by slashing public services or raising £1 billion in revenue in this financial year. Each of those options would be devastating to the people whom we serve. That is why, as I have often said, I do not subscribe to begging-bowl politics. This is about a partnership with the Treasury and the UK Government, wherein we meet them halfway, saying, "We are going to be proper custodians of public funds. We're going to drive inefficiency and waste out of our system. We're going to do everything that we can." However, we need to build credibility with the UK Government and the Treasury in order to ask them for the much-needed support because, if we set a Budget and try to make up that shortfall, public services will be utterly devastated in this financial year, and that is not something that I am prepared to do at this stage.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The situation in Scarva was an incredibly challenging one. Elected representatives, including from the DUP, and the MP for Upper Bann, Carla Lockhart, were in Scarva and stepped up, trying to de-escalate the situation and liaising with the PSNI to resolve issues before they gave rise to violence. That is leadership. That is not easy, and it is, of course, much easier for people to sit on the sidelines and criticise, based on a handful of photographs. If he was not there and did not see what happened, I suggest that the Member listens to the Member's statement that my colleague from South Down Diane Forsythe made this morning about the situation on the ground. The public representatives from the DUP were there to de-escalate the situation and support a peaceful resolution at a peaceful protest.

Mr O'Toole: I repeat, deputy First Minister: people saw what they saw with their own eyes. They did not see that MP de-escalating a situation. They saw a Member of Parliament from your party right in the middle of a scrum of masked men. I repeat: masked men, shouting racist and sectarian abuse. They did not see de-escalation. Deputy First Minister, you talk about a positive image for our future, and that is one that I wish to share in, but those images looked like they were from a Paisleyite past. That could have been Burntollet Bridge. It is shocking and unacceptable that you, in that role, cannot accept the gravity of those images —

Mr Speaker: Right, Mr O'Toole —

Mr O'Toole: — so, I repeat, deputy First Minister, are you not ashamed of those images —

Mr Speaker: Deputy First Minister.

Mr O'Toole: — and do you condemn the masked men —

Mr Speaker: Deputy First Minister.

Mr O'Toole: — the racist abuse and the spreading of toxic waste on the public road?

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, I have called the deputy First Minister. You have had a very good score at this, so please.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is shameful that you stand in this place and spin a narrative on the basis of a handful of photographs when people are telling you what happened on the ground. The protest was happening. The situation was volatile. Elected representatives from the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV were on the ground, including Carla Lockhart, Diane Forsythe and Jonathan Buckley. They were there to de-escalate the situation. That is why I asked you to listen to the Member's statement. The photographs that you are referring to show Carla Lockhart standing, not on her own but with a line of public representatives, holding the line, calming things down, so it is very easy for you to criticise.

Shame on you to use that volatile situation to politically point-score when elected representatives from the DUP were there, on the ground, trying to ensure that the protest remained peaceful. The DUP has always been more than clear: we stand against thuggery, we stand against paramilitarism, we stand against terrorism and we stand for the rule of law. It was not easy for the public representatives to be there in very difficult circumstances, but violence was avoided, and I say well done to those who worked hard to ensure that that was the outcome.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: That is absolutely pathetic point-scoring. In reality, I have been clear on every occasion that, without reservation, I stand against thuggery; I stand against sectarianism; I stand against racism; I stand against paramilitarism; and I stand against terrorism. Unfortunately, you do not have to look very far around you to find others who cannot be as clear as I am being. I say this to the House: I will take no criticism that I have been, in any way, ambiguous. I condemn, without reservation, any criminality, any thuggery and any intimidation. Ask your colleagues whether they can do the same.

Ms Ennis: It is deflection and smokescreen: you condemn the presence of masked men, deputy First Minister, but just not on Saturday. On the subject of masked men, will you explain why your party representative challenged the PSNI's decision to remove the hate banner in Moygashel? Will you condemn the re-erection by masked men of that hate banner at a play park in Moygashel?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will reiterate what I said earlier. What we hear from Sinn Féin when it comes to budgetary issues is, "Blame it on the Brits", but, when it comes to everything else, we hear, "Blame it on the DUP; blame it on Emma Little-Pengelly". We have all heard it. Over past weeks, we have seen coordinated posts from Sinn Féin, trying to elbow my name into every criticism that it puts across. Do you know what? I have absolutely no reservation about this and will say it again, because there is no ambiguity about it: I stand against thuggery; I stand against intimidation; I stand against sectarianism and racism; and I stand against terrorism. I say this to the Member: if all the members of your party could do the same, we would be in a much better position.

Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Here we have, once again, personal attacks being directed at me. Would the Member call out her children and the children of her colleagues? To the Member, who was convicted of IRA criminal activity, I say this: I hope that when you look at your colleagues to your left and right on your side of the House — people who were members of the IRA, an organisation that killed people, carried out punishment beatings on children, killed women, planted bombs that killed innocent civilians and shot people in the back from the darkness of the night — you call them out. Calling out someone for the alleged actions of their father, which you have done before, despite your own actions, is disgraceful.

To the people who are watching us, I say that I stand on my own two feet. I have always been absolutely clear about where I stand on terrorism, paramilitarism and thuggery. I say it without reservation and can do so openly and honestly, because I believe in the future of this place. While Members on the other side of the House want to look back, I believe in building a better Northern Ireland for everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of the community that they come from. I will work with people who have a past to try to build a future for them, provided that they can say, honestly and with hand on heart, "What happened in the past was wrong. There was always an alternative", and we will then move forward together. Shame on you. One person here let themselves down; it was not me.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I have not let myself down at all. My remarks were to the rest of your party [Interruption.]

At the end of the day, guns were used to kill Catholics — Davy Payne; surface-to-air missiles in South Africa and Paris and then some. I will give the deputy First Minister another opportunity not to deflect but to condemn her party's involvement in Ulster Resistance and with the red berets that they wore.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Again, that is absolutely pathetic. A blind man on a galloping horse can see what Sinn Féin is all about. In past weeks, it has been all about repeatedly attacking me. I have put on the record my determination to move forward, to look to the future, to champion Northern Ireland and to support people from all communities. It is really sad that you have decided to come to the Chamber and try to drag this down into what is, very clearly, a personal attack on me.

Let me repeat: all terrorism was wrong. Your terrorism was wrong. Your colleagues' terrorism was wrong. Terrorism, be it from the loyalist side, the republican side or wherever, was wrong. There was never any justification. There was always an alternative. I can say that clearly. I wish that you could; I wish that your party leader could; I wish that your colleagues could. I will say this: it is shameful that, as I stand here, people watching today see this display, which is a really blatant attempt to attack me and to bring me down. I look to the future. I look to the positivity of the future. I look to working in partnership and driving forward our Programme for Government, because what matters to people is health, education, building our economy —

Ms Ennis: Do you condemn it?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: — and getting Northern Ireland going.

I condemn all terrorism. I have said that very clearly. It is all about distraction and deflection, and everybody can see through it.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. We all know that we want this place to work, and we want it to work better. The DUP has, of course, set out its stall on a number of areas where, we believe, that should and could be the case. Real partnership working comes from relationships. As I stand here, I am a little bit disappointed and sad about what I have just witnessed across the Chamber, because that is not partnership working. When I stood in the Chamber on the very first day that I took up this post, I said that it is about recognising that we have differences, that we are from different backgrounds and that we have different aspirations. However, you can only force partnership working to some extent. Partnership working must be based on genuine respect. It is about trying to work on an agreed Programme for Government (PFG) for the betterment of the people whom we serve. As I have said, I look to the future. It is really sad that some people are looking to the past. With an election coming up, this is all about landing blows and bringing people down, when what we really need to do is to work together for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Guy: I thank the deputy First Minister for that response. You mentioned the PFG. The latest annual report on the Programme for Government that was published recently by TEO highlights the fact that economic inactivity and low productivity are key challenges for the Executive and for delivery of the PFG. Does the deputy First Minister recognise that those challenges are compounded by the fact that, due to stop-start government, we have had six different Economy Ministers and three different economic strategies during the past 10 years?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: First, we have to recognise that the Northern Ireland economy is an economy transformed. There is no doubt about that. Even when I graduated from Queen's University as a young lawyer in the early 2000s, your options were somewhat limited. To get into some of the bigger companies, you would have had to go to London. Today, we have Citigroup. I recently had a meeting with Bank of America. It is going to create up to 350 jobs here in Northern Ireland by the end of the year. Given the advancements in back-office services, professional services, cybersecurity, research and innovation and advanced manufacturing, we have really transformed our economy.

The Member is absolutely right: economic inactivity and productivity are two significant issues that we need to tackle. Unfortunately, economic inactivity goes well beyond stop-start government. It is a community issue. It can be a family issue. There can be long-term transgenerational unemployment and economic inactivity. It can be to do with poverty, lack of ambition and educational underachievement.

There are many different elements, and I feel incredibly passionate about the issue.

I did not go to a grammar school; I went to an excellent non-grammar school, Markethill High School. I want every child, regardless of the school they go to —grammar or non-grammar — to achieve, get their qualifications and change their lives for the better. Economic inactivity does not do that. You are absolutely right: they are big issues that will not be resolved by simply one aspect. All of the Departments must work together.

Ms Kimmins: Road safety is a high priority for my Department, and we are committed to working proactively to make our roads safer and address the needs of all road users. I fully recognise the concerns about the junction, which have been raised with my Department by a number of elected representatives, including Michelle Guy. My officials have identified this junction, along with Ballymacbrennan and Crossan’s Crossroads, as three locations where improvements are being developed. Those works are considered to be a priority, and a consultant has been commissioned to take the proposals forward. However, Members will appreciate that progressing junction improvements of that nature involves detailed design, land acquisition, engagement with landowners and procurement, so delivery will take some time.

In recognition of the timeline associated with the full junction improvement scheme that is required, we have already taken proactive interim steps to improve safety at the junction. Most recently, during nearby roadworks, we carried out roadway and drainage cleaning, renewed road markings and cut back vegetation. We have also started work to renew the high-friction surfacing and upgrade the road markings with increased performance road markings at the junction, as well as cleaning signs and replacing catseyes in the area, all of which will support road safety while the full junction improvement scheme is being progressed.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for her response. I have seen some of the improvements that have been carried out over the last week, and they are welcome. However, Minister, the residents are at a loss to understand the lack of real action at the junction. I spoke to a resident who lives beside the junction who acted as a first responder during a fatality at one of the collisions at the junction. Over the last three-year period, from 2022 to 2025, there were 18 recorded collisions, of which 10 were serious, and there were 42 serious injuries. Minister, how many more serious collisions are required at the junction before the Department will take action to resolve the problem?

Ms Kimmins: First, we take this very seriously, particularly given that there have been fatalities. In my response, I acknowledged that the Department is treating the junction as a priority. Unfortunately, a complex process is needed to do exactly what we need to do, which is a full upgrade and improvement of the three locations that I have mentioned. However, we need to make sure that we do it right. In my previous response I stepped the Member through the work that is required to get to that stage, which is why we have commissioned the interim works to increase safety until the work is completed. For example, it can take some time to engage with landowners about land acquisitions, and it is not within the Department's control. We can dedicate our resources to that, but it takes time because we are required to work with external parties, such as landowners. I have seen that in many other projects, and it has been a learning curve for me since I came into the role, having dealt with constituency issues where it has been difficult to comprehend why things take the time that they do.

I assure the Member that we will not be found wanting in terms of the pace of this, and we will ensure that it keeps pushing forward. It has been strongly acknowledged that the junction requires the improvements that have been approved, and we will work hard to make sure that the improvements are delivered at the earliest possible stage, with all the work that is required.

Mr McHugh: Minister, what plan do you have to improve the condition of the road network?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member may be aware, the consultation on the draft road maintenance strategy ran from 2 December and closed at the end of January 2026. I am grateful to all those who provided feedback to the consultation, because it has been overwhelmingly positive. I am working closely with my officials to finalise the consultation report and update the draft road maintenance strategy to reflect the feedback from the consultation. I hope to publish the consultation report and the road maintenance strategy in the coming weeks. The new strategy will ensure that my Department can deliver road maintenance in a more organised way, which will improve effectiveness and enhance our ability to respond to incidents and weather events that impact on our road network. Once that is published, my Department will be in a much stronger position to progress a more modern, more data-driven approach to road maintenance across the North.

As I have said before in the House, I am prioritising building long-term resilience into the road network, albeit in a constrained financial environment. That is why we have also included workforce recruitment and development as part of that approach. That puts us in a good position to make a real, tangible difference to our road network and what the people whom we represent see day-to-day.

Mr Kingston: The Minister will be aware of the need to improve safety and reduce congestion at the York Street interchange in north Belfast. However, we now know that the extra funding secured for that — it was a named project as part of the 2017 confidence-and-supply agreement — was all spent elsewhere. What plans does the Minister have to deliver the new York Street interchange?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know from my response to his questions on that issue, that predates me, so I cannot speak to the decisions that happened at that time. However, as the Member will also be aware, we do not have an agreed Budget, and that will factor into Budget discussions. I have met the consultants to discuss the York Street interchange in recent months, and I know that they are looking at options. I know the importance of it. I come along the Westlink every day when coming here to work, and I know how significant the congestion is. Any challenge along that route creates bigger problems not just for people on the route but for the wider city and for people coming to and going from Belfast. That issue is very much still on the agenda, and it is about looking at what we can do. However, everything that we do is related to budget, and, hopefully, we will get an agreed Budget in the not-so-distant future.

Mr O'Toole: The original question was about the Saintfield Road in the constituency of Lagan Valley. Well, a mile or two east of that is the Saintfield Road in Carryduff, which is in my constituency and has been a hotspot for collisions. The community in Carryduff wants urgent action. An elderly woman died on the Saintfield Road earlier this year. That community is crying out for attention from your Department to traffic calming and road safety, particularly pedestrian safety measures. I ask you and your Department to take a hard look at what actions you are taking, particularly in Carryduff and that stretch down the Saintfield Road, because it is not safe enough for pedestrians in that community, and something needs to be done. I ask the Minister to look at that and to task her officials with prioritising road safety in Carryduff.

Ms Kimmins: If there are issues that have not been addressed or assessed, I am happy to look at them again. Everything that we do is about striving to ensure that we improve road safety across the North. The Member will know that everything is a priority but that, due to budget, it is not always possible to fulfil everything. However, we work hard to ensure that we do what we can and do it in good time.

I am more than happy to take that issue away and speak to officials to see whether more can be done in those specific locations. If there are sections along the Saintfield Road that the Member wishes me to give particular attention to, I am happy to do so.

Ms Kimmins: The recurrent flooding on the Shore Road near Mill Road is caused by a combined sewer overflow on the NI Water sewerage network. That overflow should discharge directly to the nearby watercourse that flows into Belfast lough but is instead surcharging directly on to the Shore Road. That is due to deficiencies in the existing sewerage network. Officials from my Department and NI Water have been working together to develop a joint solution to that complex issue, and NI Water hopes to be in a position to have the works completed by October this year.

More widely, the water quality issues in Belfast lough can be solved only through sustained, significant long-term investment in the waste water infrastructure that services the entire city, and those needs are set out in the Living with Water in Belfast plan. As part of my three-pronged approach to waste water issues, I will continue to work with the Executive to try to secure the appropriate investment that we need to ensure that NI Water can unlock capacity as well as improving the environmental performance of its assets, such as the one impacting on the Shore Road.

In parallel, as the Member will be aware, my Department is progressing developer contributions to waste water infrastructure upgrades on a phased basis, beginning with a voluntary scheme, which I announced earlier this year. That is complemented by the progression of my Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill to make provision for future regulation on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and natural drainage options. I have also been successful in securing £15 million of transformation funding to progress a pilot project in the Whitehouse area to retrofit SuDS interventions, such as swales and rain gardens, into the urban environment. Those nature-based features help to store and reduce the flow of rainwater entering the sewerage network during periods of heavy rainfall, and therefore reduce the volume of water that is spilled from combined sewer overflows. While that alleviates pressures, I accept that it does not solve all our problems. I hope that that gives you a clear outline of the work that we are doing in an accumulative way to really help to deal with the issues, particularly in the challenging financial situation.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer. The £15 million investment in that area is much welcomed. The Alliance Party has met NI Water, the Department for Infrastructure and the council a number of times over the past few years on the issue. It is great to hear that it will be completed on time by October. Do any other steps need to be taken to ensure that that pollution is stopped permanently so that we do not have another Lough Neagh situation in the heart of Belfast lough?

Ms Kimmins: The requirements when it comes to the investment that is needed to deliver the Living with Water plan for Belfast are well rehearsed at this stage. It is important to recognise that the challenges that we face are the result of a significant increase in costs — 50% over two years — from the original figure of £1·2 billion to £1·6 billion. That is a significant jump from what we were expecting originally. That having been said, we have looked at how NI Water can deliver those projects with the funding that is available, working through that at a pace that is more achievable. That is not easy, and I think that that is well recognised. That is why it is so important that, when we are around the Executive table, all Ministers have a good understanding of what the consequences of not investing in NI Water will be for delivering the upgrades that are needed. Not only does that impact on capacity when it comes to development, but, as the Member has set out in her example, it has an environmental impact, particularly on Belfast lough.

In my previous answer, I set out the steps that I am taking to move us closer to making progress. I continue to work with NI Water to find solutions, because that is what I am focused on: solutions. It is not about sitting on my hands but about ensuring that we find ways in which we can make progress, albeit with the challenges that we all face financially.

Ms Finnegan: An important part of your three-pronged approach is natural drainage, which keeps rainwater out of the waste water system, freeing up capacity for vital housing. Can you provide an update on the urban drainage transformation project?

Ms Kimmins: As I have mentioned, the Department has secured £15 million from the transformation fund for that four-year period from 2025-26 to 2028-29. The allocation of £370,000 during 2025-26 has already been fully spent, and £4·625 million has been allocated for this financial year. That funding will be used to support the nature-based solutions pilot project over the next four years. The overall target for the project is to provide approximately 10,000 cubic metres of temporary storm water storage by retrofitting those nature-based SuDS interventions into urban areas to reduce the pressure on our constrained drainage and waste water infrastructure, which will help to reduce flood risk and spills from sewers.

Work during the first year of the pilot project has focused on identifying suitable locations. There has been extensive engagement with stakeholders, including Belfast City Council, Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council and the Housing Executive. That has included completing ground investigation surveys at 11 locations in the Whitehouse and Fortwilliam areas to assess their viability for potential SuDS projects.

Two other potential locations have been identified at Drumglass Park, Lisburn Road, and Castle Place in the city centre; that is actually three. Work has also commenced to deliver a natural flood management scheme in partnership with the National Trust at its property at Lisnabreeny and Cregagh Glen and to help to slow the flow of water in the Glenbrook river during periods of heavy rainfall.

Mr Gaston: Previous reports confirm that Northern Ireland Water dumps approximately seven million tons of raw sewage into Northern Ireland waterways each year, with three million tons of that in the Belfast metropolitan area. Farmers are made the scapegoats while Northern Ireland Water continues to pollute our waterways without fear of sanction. What discussions have taken place between you and the Agriculture Minister to bring an end to the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SoRPI) agreement?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, the Minister has outlined his suggestions on SoRPI, and we continue to engage with him on that.

It is important to recognise that the removal of SoRPI will have significant consequences if it is not done in a planned and managed way. It was established to recognise the waste water infrastructure challenges that we face. However, I continue to work with the Minister to find a solution that helps us move forward on that, because we all have a responsibility when it comes to environmental protection. I am keen to address the issues that you outlined about NI Water at the earliest possible stage. That will require investment, but I am keen to continue working with the AERA Minister and all Executive colleagues on that to ensure that we can find a solution at the earliest possible stage.

Mr Carroll: It is the view of many people that developer contributions should be compulsory. If they are voluntary, they will be as much use as a chocolate teapot. Will the Minister indicate whether she is looking at implementing a system of increased fines for organisations that are polluting the lough, including any work with the AERA Minister to tackle those businesses, especially if they are agribusinesses, that are polluting the lough? Is there any work being done on increasing fines for those businesses?

Ms Kimmins: The Member may not be aware of this, but enforcement is the responsibility of the AERA Minister; it is not my responsibility. AERA has the remit for water quality. However, as I said in my response to the Member who asked the previous question, I am committed to continuing to work with the AERA Minister because I respect the responsibilities that he has for the remit of his Department, the impact that that has on the remit of my Department and, importantly, the way in which we need to work together to serve everybody we represent to ensure that we are meeting our responsibilities on the environment and on the capacity of our waste water infrastructure. The two issues are interlinked. Our key objective is to find a solution that benefits everybody. No group or sector should be pitted against another. We can all play a small part, and we are keen to do that by working together through all of those issues.

Ms Kimmins: Translink is working closely with my Department to examine the options for reopening the Antrim to Knockmore railway line. A business case is already in development and will be submitted to my Department by Translink later this year. As the Member will have heard me say before, ensuring airport connectivity for communities and businesses is vital to the economy and is an important step towards the delivery of the all-island strategic rail review recommendations. I have met representatives of both Belfast City Airport and Belfast International Airport, so I know how keen they are to see rail links in the future, because they will be hugely important for their future plans and for connecting our communities and people right across the North.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Minister, for your response. The Knockmore line is already there. It links communities in Ballinderry, Glenavy and Crumlin and, as you say, connects to the airport, which is really important and is part of that all-island review. Is there a timeline in the business case for that work coming forward? What will the next stage be in seeing its objective realised?

Ms Kimmins: It is too early to give precise dates on the reopening of the Knockmore line. It is recognised as a major project in the rail reprioritisation strategy and work will not begin on it until after 2030. Apologies, that is for work on the new line. The historic track on the line and the signalling need to be upgraded to modern standards, as the Member will know. That represents a major investment. Before work begins, it is important that the right solutions are identified. The Member will agree that we have one chance to get that right. It is important that we do so and that I can be confident that we get value for money on that work.

The delivery timeline for the Knockmore line will, like all projects, be subject to the availability of funding, approval of the necessary business cases and securing statutory consent. As we get more information on more concrete timelines, I will be happy to share it with the Member and keep in contact with him. I know how important it is to him and to his constituents, and, more widely, it will serve the needs of the people of the North.

Mr Kearney: Minister, you will be aware that the reopening of the Knockmore to Antrim line is effectively a cross-party priority, supported by all elected representatives in the constituency. It also commands a significant interest from an economic, commercial, business and community standpoint in South Antrim. Your news today is positive and helpful. However, can you specifically tell us what progress has been made on the proposed new halts from Knockmore to Antrim?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his comments. It is all very positive. We have set out very clearly, particularly through the announcement of the prioritisation strategy, what we want to do. It is incumbent on me and everybody involved to continue to work to ensure that that is delivered. The Department continues to work with Translink to look at the potential new halts at Crumlin, Glenavy and Belfast International Airport as part of that Knockmore to Antrim route. The Department is progressing the necessary technical modelling and the development of a business case to assess options for improving services along that corridor. That work in respect of the halts is scheduled for completion later this year, and its findings will inform any future decisions on the viability of new halts and how we can fully realise those in the time ahead.

As I said in response to the previous question, progress on reopening the line is subject to the completion of those business cases, the wider pieces of work, budget availability and securing the required consents. We still have some way to go to get through all of that, but work continues. We are working very closely with Translink, and I hope that we can soon make Members aware of what progress has been made and what we can expect in the near future.

Mr Dunne: My question stays on the theme of public transport. The Translink chief executive recently gave evidence to the Infrastructure Committee and warned of very serious consequences for future service delivery. Minister, how do you justify potentially significant service cuts that will, ultimately, under your watch, hit our most vulnerable the hardest?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know, there has been no detail about what Translink has been looking at. I have been engaging with Translink representatives. I met the chair of the board just last week, and I will have a meeting with Translink's wider board next week. The Member referred to information that the chief executive provided at Committee and alludes to the fare freeze that I announced a number of weeks ago. I took that decision in the context of the continuing cost-of-living crisis, as households face significant and rising costs that are beyond the control of us all and as we deal with the rising fuel crisis and things like that. For me, that was about protecting the public and people who are already struggling. It was about giving them some certainty and the option to use public transport instead of having to fill up their car to get to and from work, medical appointments or wherever they may need to go, so that they know that they have a lower-cost option that can help them to keep their head above water in these uncertain and challenging times.

We continue to work with Translink, because I do not want to see any service cuts. In fact, I want us to be able to enhance services. We have to be honest with the public, however, and say that those comments on the current assessment of what might be needed in the future are a result not of a fare freeze but of long-term underinvestment in the Executive's Budget and my budget for the Department for Infrastructure and of our inability to fully fund the needs of Translink and all our arm's-length bodies (ALBs). We have to put it in that context, but I continue to work hard with Translink to ensure that we avoid any potential service cuts. While those are operational decisions for Translink, when it comes to anything that it feels that it has to do, we will ensure that it protects its most vulnerable users, particularly those in rural communities, who, for many reasons, are more reliant on public transport.

Mr Speaker: Minister, it is well past your two minutes.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister provide an update on the business case for the reopening of the Armagh to Portadown rail line and outline when she plans to have trains departing from Armagh station back on track?

Ms Kimmins: Similar to what I said in response to a previous question, that project was identified in the prioritisation strategy, as the Member will know. I was very pleased to include it, because I recognise the importance of that line. Officials are working closely with Translink to progress those business cases. Everything is subject to budget availability, as the Member will also know. I have been working very closely with my counterparts in the South. I met Minister Darragh O'Brien again last week at the Transport Ireland conference. There is a huge feeling of positivity and ambition across our island about what the future holds for rail. I am very keen for us to be a key part of that and that we see the full realisation of what has been set out in the all-island strategic rail review and the most recent prioritisation strategy.

Ms Kimmins: The distribution of the funding that is available for capital structural maintenance for allocation to the four DFI Roads divisions are made based on need, using a range of weighted indicators that are tailored to each maintenance activity. Divisions broadly use those indicators when apportioning funding across council areas in order to ensure, as far as possible, an equitable distribution of that funding. Those indicators encompass usage, general surface condition, structural deformation, public enquiries and public liability claims.

The factors that are taken into account when distributing the available funding for essential maintenance activities such as patching and grass cutting include, for example, defect information, areas of grass and numbers of gullies. The capacity of our internal contractors is also a factor in the allocation of funding. Where our internal capacity cannot fully deliver the current requirements, my Department’s divisions or section offices must engage the services of external contractors. That cost will differ across council areas, depending on relevant capacity and external contract rates.

My Department’s four Roads divisions broadly use the indicators that I mentioned when apportioning their allocation across council areas in order to ensure, as far as possible, an equitable distribution of funds. Therefore I would like to assure the Member that Ards and North Down receives a fair and proportionate share of the funding that is made available to my Department for road maintenance, based on all the factors that I have outlined. We have discussed these matters previously and they were the topic of a recent Adjournment debate, so we have explained how all of that is worked out.

My officials will continue to carry out inspections. Any defects that meet the current limited service maintenance policy will be reported for action and will be dealt with as soon as possible. The Member will be aware that we are also considering our budget for 2026/27, and the programme of works will be finalised once a budget is available.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, according to data from your Department, my constituency has the lowest level of DFI expenditure across the 11 council areas. The Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area, for example, receives 253% more than mine, yet the roads in my constituency, according to Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) data, are the second worst in Northern Ireland. Can you explain that discrepancy to me and will you, today, commit not only to re-examining how the roads budget is apportioned but to accepting a list of roads and pavements in my constituency from me, in order to see whether anything can be done about roads that are in a really bad state?

Ms Kimmins: Every council area could probably make the same arguments about the numbers of defects and the level of maintenance that is required.

Mr Martin: They are the second-worst in Northern Ireland.

Ms Kimmins: I have set out clearly what the current methodology is. Based on the information and advice that is available to me, that is the fairest way to do it in order to ensure that distribution is proportionate. I do not wish to dismiss the statistics that the Member outlined, but it is important to look at what the capacity of the workforce may be in that area. That is a key aspect of all of this. I have said before in this Chamber that even if I had all the money that is required to fulfil the total road maintenance needs of our network, it is no good to me if we do not have the staff to deliver that work. There are vacancies, and, as the Chairperson of the Infrastructure Committee, the Member will be aware that we have undertaken a significant recruitment drive in order to increase our workforce capacity. That is what will help to deliver.

I said in my initial answer that when we do not have capacity, we have to use external contractors, which, naturally, comes with an increased cost. There are so many different factors. If the Member writes to me, I will be happy to provide him with more details in relation to Ards and North Down and, perhaps, on where there are issues that affect staff, which may be contributing to the statistics that he has outlined.

Mr McMurray: Minister, what are you doing to give rural communities their fair share? People in those communities are, very often, furthest from critical services such as hospitals, and have to travel on some of the worst roads in the country in order to access services?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know, I serve a large rural constituency. There is no doubt that many of the roads in south Armagh and in Armagh city are in a dire state. I travel on them every day, so I know just how bad things are. Rural roads make up about 75% of the entire road network and, therefore, a significant proportion of the overall budget for structural and essential maintenance will be targeted towards those roads. I have set out very strongly when working with officials that we need to properly invest in our rural roads, albeit from a constrained financial position. That is something that I am very keen to do, in conjunction with all the work that we are doing on our road maintenance strategy and to address the issues that have had an impact on our roads. In addition, we will use the digital survey in order to properly inform officials as to where we need to target resources.

That is key, particularly in more rural areas where, in the past, we have had to rely on staff to go out and inspect roads when a defect has been reported. That data is now readily available to us, and we have to make sure that we use it efficiently and effectively. As I said in my previous response, we also have to increase our workforce to increase our capacity. That is how we will build in long-term resilience so that, even without additional funding, we can make a real difference.

Last year, I invested £9 million in the roads recovery fund, which targets more rural areas, recognising the challenges that our rural communities face. I want to continue in that vein. I want to continue to enhance the funding that we can allocate, particularly in rural areas, because I know how important that is for those communities. They feel, rightly, that they have been left behind for many years, since long before my time, in essence because we have had to target A-class roads due to the lack of investment not just in my budget but that of the whole Executive.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know, that is a long-standing issue. I am pleased to say that my Department has been working closely with the PSNI and other statutory bodies towards a memorandum of understanding to deal with what we know is a sensitive issue. My constituency office has had complaints about flags being erected outside Ardmore police station in Newry, as one recent example. It is a challenging position. We want to ensure that everybody feels that, no matter where they go across the North, it is inclusive and safe. We all have a responsibility to show leadership on these issues.

My Department's responsibility is about whether something is a public safety issue. That is why we work with the police on these such issues, particularly where hate crimes have been committed and offensive signage has been erected. We work off police advice on whether we should remove whatever the attachment may be, whether it is flags or signs or whatever else. That work continues. We look at everything on a case-by-case basis. I hope that we, as elected representatives across the House, can show leadership about anything that impacts negatively on people in our communities.

Mr McNulty: Minister, under the Terrorism Act 2000, there are new legal powers to take down the flags of proscribed terrorist organisations such as the UVF, the UDA and the IRA. What are you and your Department doing, using those new powers, to proactively work with the police and other statutory organisations to ensure that any such flags are quickly removed from departmental property?

Ms Kimmins: The Member will also be aware that that is a policing decision. The police have outlined that, where a crime is committed, they are willing to assist in the removal of materials that are essentially a crime, and they have done so in the past. As I said in my previous response, we continue to work with the PSNI. I also have a duty to protect my staff in the removal of offensive materials. A balance needs to be struck all the time. Regardless of who puts up the material, we have to recognise the risks that may be associated with its removal. That is why I work with the PSNI, as I hope do all statutory bodies. It is not just on DFI property that we see those signs or flags erected. I want to ensure that, whatever we do, we build an inclusive society for everybody here.

Ms Kimmins: I am pleased to report that the four statutory rules (SRs) necessary to support the introduction of the graduated driver licence (GDL) have successfully passed the Infrastructure Committee's initial scrutiny. That allows me to request the scheduling of a motion to debate the draft specified restrictions regulations that will specify the new, two-part, post-test R plate and will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, which I have done. The need for the Assembly to approve the draft regulations before summer recess is, in essence, holding back the making of the other three SRs. The interdependency of the four SRs means that they must all be made at the same time. I am confident that, once the legislation is in place, the Driver and Vehicle Agency will be operationally ready to deliver GDL on 1 October 2026. I thank the Committee for Infrastructure and all the stakeholders involved for their work in ensuring that we have reached this stage. I cannot overstate how important that work has been. I was speaking at the weekend to members of my family who are parents of young people getting ready to start driving. They really welcome the intervention and recognise that it will keep their young people safe.

I am keen that we continue to move at pace and get this operational for 1 October, as I originally set out to do, so that we keep working towards making all our roads safer for all road users.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her answer. I am glad to hear that the legislation is progressing. Does the Minister agree that, given that we hope to see, due to graduated driver licences, a reduction in the number of collisions, insurance companies should reduce the ridiculous premiums that they are quoting for many young people?

Ms Kimmins: Yes. Whilst I outlined that the primary purpose of the work on graduated driver licensing is to improve road safety, and the safety of our new and young drivers in particular, it is also acknowledged that one of the key factors in the cost of insurance premiums is the number and severity of collisions that we see across the North. Any impact on insurance premiums will ultimately depend on the insurers' assessments of evidence demonstrating lower risk and reduced claims, which will take some time to bed in, but I have already had meetings with the Association of British Insurers to make sure that it is aware of what we are setting out to do so that it can factor that in when engaging with insurance providers. That is a huge issue for our young people here. I want to ensure that we look at all aspects of car insurance so that we can get people on the road who are safer and that it is affordable for them to do so. As a representative of a rural community, the Member will know how important it is for people living in her constituency to have access to their own transport. They need it to get to work or, depending on their age, school and for all their other activities. Recognising that, we need to make sure that it is affordable and that we improve road safety for everybody.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his comments. I am really keen to progress that work, given some of the very sad experiences that we have seen, particularly in the past number of years. The consultation on safer journeys to school closed in May. I am pleased that there was a very strong level of public engagement: more than 600 responses were submitted as part of the consultation. That, in itself, reflects the public feeling out there about doing something about how our children travel to and from school safely. My officials are undertaking a more detailed analysis of those responses. That is happening alongside ongoing engagement with our key partners, including the PSNI, to ensure that proposals are evidence-based and deliverable, which is a key aspect of the work. We do not want to do something just for the sake of it; we need to ensure that what we set out to do is deliverable and that we base it on evidence.

Alongside the consultation, wider work is being progressed to strengthen education, enforcement and more practical safety measures. We are working across Departments in that regard. As I said, this is an absolute priority for me. I am determined that we see it through and that we get really good legislation in place that will make a real difference so that we, as parents and a community, can feel confident that our children are safer when they travel to and from school.

Mr Kearney: I thank the Minister for that response. It is an area of road safety, including rural road safety, that is within our control and in which improvements can be delivered in a very tangible way at low cost. Minister, when will that very important legislation be introduced to the Assembly so that we can expedite its passage?

Ms Kimmins: I concur with what the Member has said about rural road safety, and that is why there has been a specific focus on school buses in rural areas. Given the experiences that we have had and the fatalities that we have seen, there is an amount of work that is required to make those routes safer for children and young people. Following final decisions on the outcome of the consultation, I intend to bring legislation on the overtaking of stationary school buses that has been informed by the consultation responses and a wider analysis, with a view to introducing it to the Assembly in autumn of this year, subject to the necessary approvals, including Executive agreement. I really encourage all Members to get behind this. We all have said very clearly in this House that we want to ensure that our roads become safer, particularly for our children and young people, so I hope that I can get the Assembly's support to get through as soon as possible.

Ms Kimmins: As I said in response to previous questions, I recognise that there have been significant challenges with our road maintenance and the road network. We all see it, and we live with it every day. It is not something that any of us in the House is immune to, and I am very aware of that. I am also very aware of how the public feel about that and the importance of it. Having served as a councillor before becoming an MLA, I know that it is probably one of the key issues that we have always had raised with us as elected representatives.

For me, it is about looking at what the problem is and how we solve it. That is why I have set out the key areas that I am focusing on at present and into the future. Those are increased investment in road maintenance for the year ahead and increased recruitment to build the workforce capacity so that we have the people to deliver so that we can respond effectively to road maintenance issues. It is also about using the technology that we now have available to us to target the resources and make the best use of the resources that we have and about looking at better inspection-repair policy. We have also looked at utility openings, and the Member will be aware that there has been a PAC report.

I am bringing together a range of work that I hope will really help to tackle the challenges that we face, not just for this year but for well over a decade. I am keen to see that we can eventually get to a place where we are not working off a limited service policy, which I do not think is good for anybody in the long term because that would cost us more. It is about investing to save so that we can build resilience into our road network, which will benefit everybody.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. At the weekend, I was speaking to someone who drives a small scooter, and he told me that he spends as much time looking down at potholes, for his own safety, as he does looking around him for traffic. Temporary pothole repairs are not cutting it. What do you say to road users who are becoming fearful to use the road network here?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said, I know how the public feel. I think that it is fair to say that we all feel the same. I think that we should and do expect better than what we have. As the Member will know and as his colleagues in the Executive know, because of the hugely challenging situation that we have from a financial perspective, none of these decisions is easy. For me, it is about how we learn from what has happened in the past and how we make better decisions that will have an impact so that your constituent on their scooter does feel safe, is not dodging defects in the road and can see the level of maintenance that we should all expect.

As the Member will know, the Executive are doing a wider piece of work, negotiating with Treasury to ensure that we get properly funded so that we can have good public services, which include a good road network. That is a wider piece of work. With the financial envelope that I have, I am looking at what I can do to maximise the resources available to me so that everybody can see a real, tangible difference in the not-too-distant future.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know, I was out on-site last year and saw it for myself. Work is ongoing. I can get a more detailed update on that. On the day that I was on-site, we looked at a number of different issues in and around Moira, including the connection to the railway station. I am happy to come back to the Member in writing with a more detailed response. I am not sure off the top of my head where things are sitting, but we are keen to do that.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for her response and for saying that she will come back to me. Given that she has invested in a park-and-ride, has objectives to reduce journeys in cars and is trying to encourage the use of public of transport, walking and cycling, will she acknowledge that the failure to provide the lights is undermining those objectives?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. We are looking at it in the round. There have been historical budgetary issues regarding what we want to do, what we need to do and what we can do on street lighting. It is challenging, but we have to look at where lighting must be prioritised. You gave a good example. The park-and-ride at Moira is well progressed. It is fantastic. I was there to cut the sod less than a year ago, I think. I am pleased to see the good progress that has been made. You have made a valid point. We talk in the Chamber about ending violence against women and girls. That is an issue that I have embedded in my conversations around street lighting in particular, so that we can make all our routes, particularly the active travel — walking and cycling — routes safer for women and girls and everybody. Given the times that we are living in, what we are seeing and tragic events that are becoming too frequent, these are practical solutions. I am keen to see how we can do more of that. As I said, I will give more detail in relation to that specific location.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister.

Mr McCrossan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it acceptable for a Minister to only get to question 4 in listed questions during Question Time?

Mr Speaker: The Member knows my views on that. Ministers should try to answer as many questions as possible. It is hugely unfortunate to only get to question 4. The Infrastructure Minister is not the first to have done so. I encourage Ministers to be concise in their answers.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Orders, Deputy Speakers must act with impartiality and fairness when occupying the Chair. Earlier today, the Principal Deputy Speaker, Carál Ní Chuilín, appeared to allude to some Members' contributions as being "obnoxious". That falls far short of the impartiality that is required. Will you and your office review those comments and make a ruling, please?

Mr Speaker: We will review them.

Mr Gaston: Further to Mr Buckley's point of order, there have been a number of occasions on which, I believe, the Principal Deputy Speaker has not acted impartially. This morning's degrading comments were further evidence to that end. I understand that the Principal Deputy Speaker should be impartial when she takes that Chair. I urge you, Mr Speaker, to review the comments from this morning's session.

Mr Speaker: As I indicated to Mr Buckley, I am happy to do that.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): Mr Speaker, you can rest assured that you will not get anything obnoxious from me

as I speak on the Justice Bill in my capacity as the DUP's justice spokesperson and as an MLA.

I will repeat what I said at the start of my speech as Chairperson of the Committee. The first day of the debate was a good day for the Assembly. We moved on some law and voted on amendments and clauses. The spirit in which the debate was conducted was good and healthy, and it was a standard that we should set for the rest of the Consideration Stage.

There are some good things in this group of amendments, if I do say so myself. My party has brought forward some amendments. I commend my colleagues Brian Kingston and Maurice Bradley who sit with me on the Justice Committee and who worked diligently alongside me. I also place on record my heartfelt thanks to all members of the Committee. I am speaking now as a justice spokesperson for the DUP, but I want to make it clear that I respect all members of the Justice Committee for their work ethic, the way in which they work as a team and the way in which they scrutinise legislation. Hopefully, some of the things that I am going to say are taken in good spirit.

I start with the Minister's amendments around organised crime groups — the new Part 2A. We recognise the need for robust legislation to tackle the growing influence of organised crime and the global nature of it. Those groups do not respect boundaries or borders, and they do not respect our people. We must do all in our power to protect our people as best we can by having robust tools at our disposal, at police and court level, to deal with organised crime, which is truly global, scientific and advanced and is hurting people in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the proposed new Part 2A regarding organised crime groups. I hope that, when that law is enforced, it will make a real difference to people's lives by keeping them safer and that people can see how it keeps them safe. Most people get on with life and do not really know how they are being protected or how the police, or bodies higher up, deploy in certain situations, but I hope that we can make a real difference to people's lives.

I move on to vagrancy. It is the Minister's position that begging and rough sleeping should not be treated as a law and order issue as it is societal. I agree with her about the social aspects. It has always been the DUP's position to support the repeal of that legislation while making sure that the law is modernised to suit the present day.

I will paint a picture. The Vagrancy Act 1824 came into force nine years after the Battle of Waterloo and the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You can imagine the scene of so many Tommies or redcoats, as they were called in those days — I prefer to call them soldiers — who had fought in the Napoleonic Wars coming home from those endeavours with limbs missing, after cannonballs took off legs, arms and all sorts. In those days, there was no social services. Worse, the state not only did not help — there was no social safety net — but actually made things worse not only for the soldiers but for their dependants. Many soldiers went from these shores to fight against a tyrant and totalitarian power, leaving behind wives and children who would be destitute if their husband or father came back unable to work. Yet, the state thought it right to pass laws such as the 1824 Vagrancy Act, which refers to "rogues and vagabonds". In those days, soldiers got a really hard time. That law typified how they were treated during and after their service to this country and, in many respects, the world in fighting for freedom in the Napoleonic Wars. There was then the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act of 1847. That was the worst year of the Famine, yet the state thought it right to pass legislation that prevented people getting help.

It is simply right and proper that we look to repeal such laws, mindful as we stand in this great place — this Assembly Chamber — of representing our people and making sure that the laws that we pass are appropriate. I am glad that we do not live way back then. The Minister said earlier that it was Dickensian; in many respects, it was before Dickens. It was this that led the way, not the Dickens's novels, which illustrated the poverty on the streets of England, particularly in London. That was the mindset of the state — those were the laws that were passed — and it is little wonder that people struggled through poverty and in trying to find a means of living. It is therefore right and proper that no one should be criminalised, even in the modern day, simply for begging, being poor or having no home to live in or bed to sleep in, so it is right that those laws be repealed.

I thank the Minister and her Department for working with us so that we could illustrate and address our party's position on the laws and so that she could support the modernisation provisions in the new clauses in amendments Nos 71 and 72. We believe that they are required. They are required because similar provisions have been made through sections 11 and 12 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Section 11, on trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence, creates a very narrow offence whereby, if a person trespasses on any premises — a building, part of a building or an enclosed area — with the intent to commit an offence, whether or not that is on those premises, they commit an offence with a summary sentence of up to three months in custody or a level 3 fine.

Section 12 of that Act creates the offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain, which has a summary-only penalty of up to six months' custody, rising to 51 weeks on commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which should be read alongside existing public order and antisocial behaviour measures that are used to deal with problematic aspects of begging. That, again, does not deliberately criminalise begging, activity around begging or "beggars", if you want to use that term, but criminalises problematic aspects of behaviour around begging.

We can all visualise and recognise how and why someone ends up being homeless or rough sleeping. I repeat that such people — they could well be our family members; who knows what the future holds? — should be treated with respect and dignity and that we should support and assist them where we, as a state and as a people, can do so.

I mentioned Professor Kevin Brown in my speech as Committee Chairperson. I do so again at this point to place on record the assistance that he gave, to the Committee and to me as an MLA, from his informed expertise on these matters, which was really helpful and insightful. He offered an amendment on some of these matters that I thought it best not to table, because, at that point, we had reached a compromise with the Department, so it did not go ahead. I commend Professor Brown for his work on these matters and on the amendments that we, as a party — Brian, Maurice and I — tabled.

However, it is not right to say that there is currently enough law to adequately deal with the problematic aspects of begging and rough sleeping. Whilst the Department acknowledged that the repeal of the vagrancy laws would repeal an existing offence of trespass with intent, it stated that there was no need for a replacement offence. The Department referred to three existing offences, stating that they were adequate to deal with criminal trespass. It cited section 9 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, on burglary, under which it is an offence to trespass in a building with intent to steal, cause damage or commit grievous bodily harm.

It cited article 10 — "Wrongful taking possession, or use, of premises" — of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and sections 68 — "Offence of aggravated trespass"— and 69 — "Powers to remove persons committing or participating in aggravated trespass" — of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Now, those are all very relevant laws and should be effective in dealing with everything that they are targeted to deal with. However, I believe that there is still a significant gap around trespass with intent. Importantly, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which is UK-wide legislation, only covers trespass on land in the open air. That is relevant when a group of protesters is causing disruption on someone else's land. It was very clear that many people out there are nervous about repealing the vagrancy laws — archaic though they are, with horrendous wording — how that would work in practice in the modern day and how they would be protected, whether they be shopkeepers, people who live on the street or people who commute, shop or work in certain areas, impacted on or affected by the repeal of those laws.

When Retail NI gave evidence to the Committee — I have spoken to it since — it said that none of the above legislation covers cases where a person enters a shop with the intent to cause antisocial behaviour, harassment or assault below the level of GBH, which is what is required for burglary. There are, I believe, clear gaps. For the life of me, I could not understand how the police had not got to that position at that time. Thankfully, the police clarified their position. The Minister said at the time that, when the Department was engaging with the police, they had not offered up any concerns or problems. I acknowledge that, and the Minister and the Department can only take people at face value in that regard.

The Committee wrote to the PSNI on 2 December 2025. We got a response back, dated 7 January. I will read from that letter into the record:

You will be glad to know that.

It continues:

That was the police's view at the start of this year. That is why it is so important that we modernise this law. Absolutely, we can repeal Acts that contain atrocious, historical and archaic language; in fact, it is right to repeal them. We should repeal more laws in this place, but let us see what happens later on. There is an issue here, which is that we need to be quicker at modernising law. A law that goes back hundreds of years to a different age takes no account of technological advances or, for that matter, the Industrial Revolution, so we have to sit up and take stock. If we can repeal such law, we should. It is important to modernise the law so that law enforcement agencies see no gaps whatsoever.

There is no doubt that some bodies are nervous about criminalising people who beg or are rough sleepers, and I want to address that. The evidence provided by Homeless Connect has been very helpful to the Justice Committee and to parties. Amendment No 71 from my party, which proposes new clause 23A entitled:

In response to that amendment, Homeless Connect stated:

I thank Homeless Connect for that commentary.

Amendment No 72 is a proposed new clause entitled:

On that, Homeless Connect stated:

I do not wish to bring in any law that criminalises begging.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I thank the Member for giving way. It is just to say that the PSNI has also indicated that, when the amendments pass and the repeal happens, it will go on to provide guidance to officers on the application of the law and give them assistance when it comes to how it will be implemented in practice to avoid situations such as those described by Homeless Connect.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that very important intervention. I hope that that gives confidence to people out there and gives confidence to the House that it can vote positively for those two amendments to modernise the law around vacancy and to repeal the past law, which was archaic and included bad language to describe people. "Rogues and vagabonds" is the terminology that was used. The text of that legislation is damning — the history of the state and its lack of support for soldiers and their families and also people who suffered from hunger. I ask the House to support those two amendments to modernise the law and to arm the police with the tools that they require to deal delicately, passionately and effectively with people breaching and breaking the law. I also commend the Minister and the Department for the way that they worked with and engaged with me, my colleagues and my party on this stuff to get to the point where we can repeal vacancy law and modernise the law.

I will turn to amendment No 78, which is about advertising sexual services and is in my name and those of my two colleagues on the Committee, Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston. First, I make it very clear to the Minister that I am absolutely agreeable to working with the Minister and the Department to try to make sure that this law fits our legislative framework and fits in with the scope of what we have the vires to do. That is a given, and I can state categorically that I and my party will work with the Department over the coming months before we get to the Further Consideration Stage. I can assure the Minister that, if we need to reword anything, we will work together to do that.

Amendment No 78 addresses a profound and evolving harm that has blighted the whole of the UK for over a decade and is now receiving the attention that it deserves, namely the role of online advertising that enables sexual exploitation and trafficking here in Northern Ireland. The recent BBC documentary on the life and death of Caitlin Hanna brought the issue into sharp focus. Caitlin was not brought here from South America or eastern Europe; she was a young woman who was groomed, drugged and trapped in the grip of a criminal gang and advertised on a website in Belfast for sexual services to which she did not consent. Caitlin was not alone. According to the BBC, over 500 women per day — 500 women per day — are advertised for sexual services in Northern Ireland.

Just last Friday, Christian Action, Research, and Education (CARE), the organisation that helped me with the amendment, checked three of the main sites used to advertise women for exploitation. On those three sites alone, there were 472 advertisements to purchase women in Northern Ireland. The SERP Institute in Dublin, in its study of one of those websites — the main website used by traffickers in Northern Ireland — estimated that 85% of the women on that site during that research period were coerced, controlled or exploited.

That is human trafficking on an industrial scale. It is happening on our doorsteps, yet we turn a blind eye.

Ms Egan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Ms Egan: Does the Member agree that one of the most disgusting things that we have learned from CARE's findings and our work in the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation has been that, on those sites, one user and one account can actually advertise hundreds of profiles? They are literally set up not just to facilitate trafficking but to profit from it. It is absolutely disgusting and wrong.

Mr Frew: I agree with everything that Connie Egan said. I thank her for her contribution and intervention. It is despicable that that has been allowed to happen. I am not blaming anyone for that; such has been the growth of that evil that we have not really had time to comprehend or deal with it. However, this is an opportunity to do so.

Women are moved from location to location across the UK and Ireland. They are also moved within cities and towns from one place to another. That is human trafficking under our laws. Women in those advertisements are described as being available for an "out call". That means that they are taken by a man from one location to another. That is trafficking. Not only that but adverts describe people as being "on tour". That means that they have been moved from Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester, Cork or from elsewhere outside the UK to Belfast. Those sites are filled with clear indicators of organised trafficking operations.

Police investigations bear that out. In one case, six women in their twenties were trafficked into Northern Ireland on false promises of employment and then forced into prostitution for the profit of an organised crime group. More broadly, modern slavery referrals in Northern Ireland increased markedly by up to 50% in a single year.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned the case of Caitlin Hanna, in which, I think, a total of 11 women were being trafficked and made available for prostitution and abuse by a gang of men here. Sadly, two of them died. One of the survivors, Rebecca, spoke very powerfully at recent events. When you hear the level of degradation, the harm that has been caused to those women mentally, physically and psychologically, and the damage that has been done, it is remarkable, frankly, that any of those women have been able, first of all, to get out of the situation that they were in and, secondly, to find the courage to speak out about it. I just want to put on record that I believe that she has done a real service to other women by speaking out about her experience. Sometimes, when people hear about others being trafficked, they think that it involves moving them long distances. It is not; it is about being made available for exploitation. Sadly, that happens in our communities and on our streets daily.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that really important intervention. I echo the sentiments in her speech on that. It is horrific. It takes great courage for a woman who finds herself in that position to actually speak up, get out and seek the support and help that she needs. For most of the time that she is in captivity and being trafficked, that will be denied to her. That is really important. It is vital that we get to grips with it.

Modern slavery referrals in Northern Ireland have increased. They went up by 50% in a single year and by 1,000% over four years. What is fuelling that increase? It is fairly obvious: it is demand. Those websites drive demand for women to be bought and sold across Northern Ireland. That is happening in each and every constituency that is represented in the House. It is organised by criminals. Critically, it all happens online.

The shift from street corners or adverts in telephone boxes or magazines to online is the defining feature that has led to the massive increase in modern sexual exploitation. The Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner's recent report makes for alarming reading. Tens of thousands of such adverts appear across the UK, and almost 60% of those adverts contain multiple indicators of trafficking or exploitation. It is trafficking on an unimaginable scale. The National Crime Agency describes those websites as:

in the UK. I do not apologise for labouring the point and for setting out in detail the exploitation that the amendment seeks to end. It is important that the issue is set out fully and comprehensively, so that no one can turn a blind eye and say, "I didn't know the scale of this problem".

Members may ask, "If the problem is so prevalent, why is nothing being done? Why have those sites not been shut down?". The reality is that we have a plethora of laws on the statute book relating to combating pimping and ending the demand for the purchase of sexual services, but those laws were designed for an analogue era. The problem is this: while individuals involved in prostitution may be criminalised, the platforms and intermediaries that build the infrastructure and profit from exploitation often sit beyond the arm of the law. There is no explicit offence in Northern Ireland prohibiting the publication of advertisements for sexual services, whether online or offline. We have no law to dismantle the infrastructure that connects trafficking gangs and the people in our cities who seek to exploit the women who are brought here. Many police forces, including ours, have sought to cooperate with those websites, but evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee at Westminster confirms that voluntary cooperation does not work. The Committee found that cooperation led to limited prosecutions and resulted in absolutely no dismantling of the structures of trafficking.

In a recent debate on the issue that was secured by colleagues on the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation, the Minister rightly pointed out that she has no power over regulation. Regulation of telecommunications is a reserved matter. However, combating this issue is not just about regulation; it is about helping people exit prostitution and getting our criminal law into a state that is fit for purpose. We do not have the power to regulate, but we do have the power to make modern criminal law. We have the power to be a leader across the UK's legislatures and pass the law that is needed to start the process of dismantling the infrastructure of trafficking. That is what the amendment seeks to do. Criminal law change is needed to ensure that those websites are shut down. All that we can do in the House is play our part, which is to bring in a criminal sanction, and the amendment gives us the chance to do that. Hopefully, our actions will be a spur to Westminster to bring in the change to regulation that is required there and that will cover us. That is what is needed.

What exactly does amendment No 78 do? Having set out the policy background, it is important to take some time to do exactly that, so I will now turn, in detail, to the provisions of amendment No 78. The amendment creates a new offence under the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. It provides that a person commits an offence if he or she:

for sexual services. That extends to coercing someone to do so against their will. Therefore, if someone tries to get around the law by having a trafficked victim publish the advert themselves, that will also be caught by this law. The amendment is carefully constructed. It captures the entirety of the infrastructure of trafficking: the website owner, who publishes and displays the advert; the pimp, who may control and advertise women in Belfast; the individuals who manage those women on a day-to-day basis and allow that to happen; and those who go out into our communities and entice girls into exploitation. They will all be captured if a victim is advertised on one of the online platforms.

Paragraph 1(a) applies to all adverts, whether they are online or offline. The amendment is technologically neutral and future-proofed. It is extraordinary to think that there is no law here against such advertising already. The amendment ensures that old-fashioned, analogue adverts as well as those on websites, apps, AI and social media will all, hopefully, be captured. It will close a gap in our law.

Paragraph 2 makes clear that the offence applies regardless of whether or not a person profits financially. That is essential, because the infrastructure of exploitation networks often utilises layers of intermediaries. Some people in the exploitation network will facilitate the posting of the advert, some key in the data to the online platform, some coordinate activity, and others ensure that the online infrastructure is managed and remains online. Many receive no payment, or, at least, no traceable payment, for that work. Paragraph 2 ensures that all facilitators at every level of the trafficking infrastructure are captured, not just those who take a visible cut of the money.

Paragraph 3 aligns penalties with existing offences in the 2008 Order, providing for imprisonment for up to six months on summary conviction and up to seven years on conviction on indictment. That ensures proportionality and consistency while also recognising that some people in the trafficking infrastructure will be more culpable than others.

Amendment No 78 is not the end of the matter. The Assembly has much more work to do, and Westminster and Dublin also have work to do if those sites and the exploitation that they enable are to be ended. The Assembly needs to make better provision for those who have been exploited, and Westminster needs to make the necessary regulations to ensure that Ofcom can enforce the necessary court orders against the owners of those websites and shut them down for good. The amendment, however, represents the first step in what we can do as an Assembly. Whilst it will not fully solve the problem, it at least ensures that Northern Ireland sends a signal to criminal gangs and platform owners that we will not tolerate the infrastructure of trafficking and exploitation here.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member very much for giving way. I applaud his passion and the work that he has done on amendment No 78. It is clearly very important. No one wants anyone to be in prostitution, but I am mindful that I have worked with some sex workers who have come to me for support. They have often felt very far away from support. If, as a society, we are trying to help people in whatever way that we can, will the Member speak to how people who are already vulnerable will not be made more vulnerable as a result of the legislation?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for that intervention. In all examples that we give and all opportunities that we have in the House, we should acknowledge that anyone who has been exploited, trafficked, held in captivity or forced to do any activity against their will, including sex, needs to be supported. The police need to reach into those activities in the darkest corners of our Province, streets and towns, so that those people can be found, rescued and supported to recover and get justice.

Ms Nicholl: Can I come back in?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you. Yes, I completely agree when we are talking about people who have been trafficked. Some of the people whom I have met — they have come to me — have chosen sex work. We can have a whole debate about whether that is violence against women or not; there is a whole feminist argument about that. Those are people who may be doing that independently on their own and are not trafficked or pimped. My question to you is this: are you confident that the legislation will not move those people further away from getting support? It is one of the things that we may have had a difference of opinion about years ago when we were discussing clause 4 of Lord Morrow's Bill, which was to do with the criminalisation of payment for sex and whether that drove it further underground so that people found it harder to get access to support.

I am 100% behind you on the work to end trafficking, and you are completely right that dismantling the infrastructure is a key part of that. My only question is about people who willingly engage in sex work. We can debate whether you agree that it is or not, but they are not trafficked and they are sex workers. Are you confident that they will not be made more vulnerable? Are there any mechanisms in place that can ensure that those people can get support, should they need it?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for raising that, because it is a really important issue. There are people who do it by choice. I think that there is a better way in life and in society. However, as Lord Morrow did in his cutting-edge Bill all those years ago, I want to put that question at the heart of our debate, whereby we do all that we can to support the people who are at the front edge of this. I have no sympathy for pimps or people who organise others to take part in sexual activities, but I understand completely what the Member says about the people who are conducting the activity. I recognise that some people are doing it by choice. The police, the law enforcement agencies and the courts can and should take such things into consideration.

I pay tribute to Lord Morrow, who was the person who started the work on this. In many ways, what we are doing here is building on his legacy in what is now a digital age.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will in a wee second.

Even though it was only 10 years ago, the advancements in technology and the growth of this evil have been incomprehensible. All those years ago, when we debated the issue, none of us envisaged just how large the problem would become. Now we are left in a situation where there are so many victims in Northern Ireland who are living desperate lives and are in need of rescue. It is up to us to make sure that our laws are the best that they can be in order to do that.

I thank the Member for her intervention. The Minister wanted to come in.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the point that my colleague has raised, and I wanted to shine a bit more light on the support that is available. DOJ has a support contract with Belfast and Lisburn Women's Aid (BLWA) for female adult victims who consent to entering the national referral mechanism (NRM). The Department of Health has lead responsibility for policy and support for exiting prostitution, which is separate from the modern slavery work that we have done. There are a number of routes whereby people can exit prostitution voluntarily and there are places that they can go to for support and for opportunities to get that support. Kate is, of course, entirely correct in that we are often dealing with people who are marginalised and fearful that contact with statutory agencies may lead to their being further criminalised and excluded. It is important that they have the confidence to come forward and seek the support that is available. All of us, irrespective of whether people are engaged in prostitution or otherwise, want to ensure that they are not coerced to do so and that they are safe as possible.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention. That critical information will, hopefully, be broadcast throughout the Province and will inform people about the support that is out there.

My colleague Brian Kingston wanted to come in.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Member for giving way. Like Connie, I am a member of the all-party group (APG) on modern slavery and sexual exploitation. The evidence that we have heard about how the internet, which can transform all aspects of life, whether good or bad, has transformed the advertisement of sexual services has been revealing and disturbing. We recently received evidence from Ruth Breslin of the Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy Institute (SERPI), who had looked at active pimping websites in Northern Ireland. On what the Alliance Member for South Belfast said, we sometimes hear the argument that some women choose to sell sexual services, primarily, one assumes, as a source of income. Some people even say that they are empowered by doing so. SERPI’s research, however, showed that, while a small number could be seen to be doing the work by choice, the vast majority, 85% to 90%, of women advertised on such websites were either clearly trafficked or vulnerable.

We have heard from others how addiction is used to trap women in that lifestyle, where they are exploited. They end up in a situation where they are not even making any money; all that they are doing is being exploited in order to earn a fix of the drug that they have been addicted to against their will. It really is a horror show, and it is terrible to hear of the deaths. It is a modern trap that the internet has made much worse. That relates to the purpose of our amendment, and I will say a bit more on it later. At this stage, we are open to ideas for making sure that the amendment is as effective as possible. The research that we have received is that those who, supposedly, sell sexual services by choice make up a small percentage of the total.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention, lengthy as it was. He made an important point. I nearly forgot that I had the Floor, because Brian was taking so long, but I thank him. While I jest, he made really important points and will, I know, speak on them at greater length.

I commend the amendment to the House and ask all parties and all Members to support it. It is the next step in the fight — the war — against the trafficking and exploitation of our most vulnerable.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He referred to Lord Morrow's pioneering Bill of 10 years ago. In light of some of the comments that have been made, particularly those by the Member for South Belfast and the Member for North Belfast, and given the constantly evolving picture with AI and the internet, does the Member agree that, even though we are where we are today and the amendment will, hopefully, close more loopholes, it is inevitable that more loopholes will come, so we need to be proactive and vigilant in that regard to ensure that we safeguard women not only now but in the future?

Mr Frew: The Member makes a valuable contribution. As legislators, we have to be agile in the battles out there. It is a battleground, and people are being damaged and hurt every hour of the day. This is a war, and we should counter it as such, because people are being damaged or destroyed every day. It is important that we recognise the scale of it, get to grips with it and put in place laws that are robust enough to combat it. I therefore commend amendment No 78 to the House.

I move on to amendment Nos 88 and 89, which are on domestic abuse involving animals. Domestic abuse is one of the most serious safeguarding challenges that we face in Northern Ireland. Official figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) show that 30,203 domestic abuse incidents and 18,453 domestic abuse crimes were recorded in the year to September 2025. Accounting for almost one in five crimes, that is more than 80 incidents every day, with the police responding every 16 minutes, rising to around 100 call-outs per day during peak periods. However, those figures represent only part of the picture. NISRA makes it clear that they are likely an underestimation. I think that we all know, as does anyone in the field of justice with an interest in the area, that that is an underestimation. There are so many people out there who, for a multitude of reasons, have not come forward or sought help.

We also know through evidence from the Links Group that 91% of victims of domestic abuse live in households with animals. Causeway Coast Dog Rescue states that many of the victims whom it supports surrender animals of less than one year old because they have nowhere to go. I drafted my amendments with my colleagues and Tara Cunningham of the Causeway Coast Dog Rescue, who was a great help, along with the Links Group, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and Women's Aid, which all support the calls in our amendments. They have been informed by the research of Dr Mary Wakeham and the legal expertise of barrister Christina Warner, who is a family law specialist and the founder of the Ruby's law campaign, reflecting real cases in which that gap in protection has been clearly identified.

The question is not whether domestic abuse law exists: it does. We have some really good domestic abuse law. The question is whether it works in the reality of every instance and whether we can improve it. Ruby's law does not create new offences; it provides clarity in existing protection orders, ensuring that the law can respond preventatively where animals are used in coercive control. It supports victims and children and first responders by giving them the legal framework to act at the point of intervention, not after harm has occurred. It is a small but significant step in ensuring that victims are not forced to choose between their safety and the safety of their pets or animals. We know about the scale of domestic abuse. We recognise coercive control, and we understand how it operates in practice. That is why we passed the laws that we did in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. No victim should be forced to choose between their safety and the safety of their animals, so that would be a proportionate and necessary step.

The targeted proposals are to strengthen domestic abuse legislation by explicitly recognising harm or threats of harm to companion animals as a form of coercive control. That reflects clear and growing evidence of the link between animal abuse and domestic abuse particularly impacting on women, children and vulnerable families. The proposed amendments aim to recognise the use of companion animals as a tool of coercion and control, enable pets to be considered in protective orders, remove the known barrier preventing victims from leaving abusive environments and strengthen safeguards in line with the Executive's ending violence against women and girls strategic framework.

Evidence shows that animal abuse is present in 88% to 91% of domestic abuse cases and is often a precursor to escalating violence. Despite that, the current legislation does not explicitly address that form of harm. We have a problem when it comes to explicitly dealing with that form of harm. The Minister has outlined the issue to me. I give this commitment to the House, the Minister and the Department: I will work with the Minister on the concerns that she has outlined about section 2 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. There is a rationale, as the Minister outlined, for why we left the law as we did. I was all over that law at the time. I scrutinised it in Committee. The Minister will know that. I recognise the dangers of explicitly describing a certain aspect of coercive control and domestic violence.

So, I give the commitment that I will work with the Minister and the Department to try to correct that in the wording of amendment No 89 if those two amendments are passed. I give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for that assurance. On that basis, I am happy to support both amendments. Particularly, those that bring the civil orders into line and explicitly mention the impact of not only companion animals but other domesticated and farm animals is a really important piece of work. I am happy to work closely with the Member before Further Consideration Stage so that that anomaly can be resolved because I do not think that any of us wants abuse involving an animal to be treated as though it is more important or more concerning than any other kind of abuse. At the same time, we will want it to be recognised on an equal footing with other kinds of coercive control. I am more than happy to work on that. Thank you.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention and that commitment. She will know that I am sincere when I say that the Department, the Minister and I will work hard together to address any concerns that the Department has. I hope that Members opposite and everywhere else in the Chamber will acknowledge the engagement and the work that has been done already between me, my party, my colleagues and the Minister and the Department on the amendments and will take that into consideration when they eventually vote on them.

These amendments recognise that behaviour as a form of domestic abuse and allow courts to protect animals through existing civil protection orders. They are supported by the Links Group, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection as well as Tara Cunningham's Causeway Coast Dog Rescue. I am mightily obliged to all those organisations for the help that they have given me. They are asking that MLAs support these amendments. Those provisions will have a significant and practical impact by formally recognising how animals are used in coercive control and by strengthening legal protections. The amendments explicitly define harm —. I do not think that we will get to that point. They will extend non-molestation and occupation orders so that courts can prohibit abusers from harming, threatening or interfering with animals and will consider the welfare of animals alongside adults and children when deciding housing and safety orders.

I could — I suspect that we all could — give a multitude of examples of this from our constituencies. We all see people daily who we suspect or know are victims of domestic abuse and coercive control. Dealing with those people is really hard. Every one of us as MLAs will give as much support as we possibly can to those people. I know that people, as is human nature, love their animals as they love their children. In many cases, if there are no children in the home, the animal is treated like a child, and it should be in many respects. We know how damaging it can be when a perpetrator who is controlling you at every level and is perpetrating domestic violence against you then threatens your animal.

It does not necessarily need to be a cat or a dog or another domestic animal that is a pet. It can be any animal that is under your care, supervision or control. That is why it is so important that this does not just cover pets. We have seen in reports that have been published, even in the past couple of months, that people love their horses. They are involved in sports with horses. Therefore, it is really important that this encapsulates all animals, including farm animals. We know that farmers live daily for their livestock and for their animals. So, if they are threatened in any shape or form, they will do whatever they need to do to ensure the safety of that animal. That is why it is really important that we somehow get this into law so that we recognise that aspect of coercive control and that we legislate for it appropriately after everything that I have said about engagement with the Minister.

I was going to get into case studies, but every single one of us will know about it, having seen and heard it for themselves through their constituency work, so I do not think that I need to do so. We know that it is a live issue and problem, and it is up to us to legislate on it.

I will talk to amendment No 88 on "Domestic abuse involving threats or harm to animals: amendment of Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998". The Minister is quite right in saying that that does not necessarily fall into her purview or responsibility and that it falls to the Department of Finance in many ways. However, in amendment No 88, I outline all the articles in that Order that, I think, need to be changed in order to recognise in law the animals aspect. Article 11, "Occupation orders where applicant has estate, etc. or has matrimonial home rights", states:

The amendment would add the wording:

by the applicant or the relevant child. That, too, is important. There must not be a loophole where the victim does not own the animal. It might be owned by a son or daughter. Whilst they might not necessarily be the direct victims of the coercive control, they might well be a victim as a child of the direct victim, and their animals might well be, too. Of course, whether it is you or your child who owns and cares for that animal, you will react in the same way. Article 13, "One former spouse with no existing right to occupy", is the same with regard to an animal, as is article 14, "One cohabitee or former cohabitee with no existing right to occupy". Article 20 states that a "non-molestation order" includes:

New paragraph (c) will bring an animal into that. That is really important, and I thank the Minister for acknowledging it.

These will be important new laws. The Justice Bill is the vehicle that my party has used to bring in those laws. I joked last Tuesday that I love a good amendment, and that is the case. I think that the Minister would acknowledge that I have exploited that licence to its extreme. I apologise to no one, however, because I am in this place to make good law that will improve our people's lives by protecting them, their children and their animals. I commend the amendments to the House and ask Members to consider supporting them.

Mr McGrath: I commend the Chair of the Committee for not being one bit obnoxious in his speech. That was quite an achievement. I hope to, likewise, not be obnoxious, but I will do so in a much shorter time than the hour and 10 minutes that we have just been subjected to. Later contributions may be a little bit shorter to help us all along.

This group brings together a diverse set of amendments, but, despite covering very different subject matter, they are united by a common theme. At their core, the amendments ask us whether our justice system is equipped to deal with modern challenges. They seek to tackle organised criminality and exploitation while also ensuring that our laws reflect our modern values. In some cases, that means giving law enforcement new powers to pursue those who direct criminal enterprises and profit from the misery of others. In other cases, it means recognising that certain offences belong to a different era and no longer have a place on our statute book. With that in mind, the SDLP will support the amendments in the group.

Amendment Nos 45 to 48 relate to organised crime groups. For too long, the North has suffered the corrosive impact of organised criminality. Whether through drug dealing, extortion, intimidation, fuel laundering, human trafficking or the continuing influence of paramilitary structures in some communities, organised crime continues to undermine public confidence, damage local economies and blight lives. The amendments help to address a significant gap in our legislative framework. They provide a statutory definition of an "organised crime group" and create the offences of participating in and directing the criminal activities of such groups. They allow our justice system to target not only those who carry out criminal acts but those who organise and facilitate such acts and, importantly, those who profit from them.

For the SDLP, tackling organised crime and tackling paramilitarism are inseparable objectives. It is important that our institutions have the legal tools necessary to disrupt the criminal networks that operate in our communities. In reality, many of the organisations that continue to exercise coercive influence in parts of Northern Ireland increasingly cloak themselves in criminality. The amendments strengthen the ability of local agencies to pursue those who direct and benefit from organised criminal activity, and they represent an important step in tackling the scourge of paramilitarism.

Amendment No 70, which repeals a number of historical public order offences, represents welcome and overdue reform. Across these islands and internationally, there is a growing recognition that outdated vagrancy laws have too often criminalised poverty and homelessness rather than addressing their causes. Homelessness charities, human rights organisations and those who work directly with rough sleepers have consistently argued that sleeping rough should never be treated as a criminal matter. People experiencing homelessness are often among the most vulnerable in our society. They are far more likely to have experienced trauma, poor mental health, addiction, family breakdown or financial crisis. They need support, intervention and access to housing; they do not need criminal records.

At the same time, repealing outdated vagrancy offences should not be confused with tolerating criminal behaviour. We recognise the concerns that have been raised about the criminality that can sometimes be associated with public spaces. We therefore welcome amendment No 71, which creates an offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence, and amendment No 72, which targets those who organise, facilitate or profit from begging for gain. We believe that those amendments strike the correct balance. They ensure that the law focuses on those who seek to exploit others or to commit offences, rather than penalising people simply because they are poor, vulnerable or without a home.

We also welcome amendment No 73, which abolishes the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. Those offences have long fallen into disuse and have no place in a modern democratic society that is committed to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Their removal has not only practical but symbolic importance. Around the world, individuals continue to face imprisonment, persecution and, in some cases, even death because of blasphemy laws. Journalists, activists, religious minorities and those of no faith continue to be targeted under such legislation.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes, of course.

Mr Burrows: I get your point, but I am worried that you are conflating apples with pears. Do you accept that nobody has actually been prosecuted under our blasphemy laws?

Mr McGrath: Yes. If you listened on, you would know that we have already made that point. Nobody has been charged with blasphemy, but given that we still have it on the statute book, how can we talk convincingly when other places and other people are being impacted by that?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I disagree with the previous intervention: we are not comparing apples and pears. The fact that blasphemy laws are on the books here is held up as an example by other countries whose blasphemy laws are more draconian and are regularly used to persecute those who dissent by having either no faith or a different faith from that of the state. I had personal experience of that when I was campaigning as part of the Open Doors network at Westminster. Ambassadors who came to meet me pointed out the hypocrisy of Northern Ireland's having blasphemy laws on the books while I was out there arguing against blasphemy laws in their nation.

Mr McGrath: Absolutely. Again, that supports the point that we are trying to make. You cannot credibly tell people that they should not be persecuting people if you have the same rules on your own books. The amendment is about removing that and allowing clarity and giving us the confidence to go and challenge other places about those offences without fear that we are going to be hit for some reason because we still have those outdated laws, even if nobody has been charged under them. As I say, if we wish to speak with credibility when criticising jurisdictions that criminalise dissent, non-belief or criticism of religion, we must ensure that our own laws are consistent with those values.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: If I must.

Mr Burrows: Just to clarify, is it the Member's position — I agree with the need to repeal the blasphemy laws — that the counterweight to that is having good free speech? Does the Member stand by free speech and the right of Christian preachers to preach the gospel across Northern Ireland?

Mr McGrath: Again, I have already referenced that. It is important to listen to all the words that I say and allow me to progress, because many of those questions have been answered. Repealing these offences sends a clear signal that freedom of thought and expression are fundamental democratic principles and that they deserve protection.

The SDLP will also support amendment No 78 concerning the advertising of sexual services. Members will be aware of the extensive work that has been carried out by the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation and the evidence that has been gathered from survivors, academics, front-line organisations and law enforcement agencies. That work highlighted the role that online advertising can play in facilitating sexual exploitation, trafficking and coercion. While much of that activity takes place out of public view, the evidence points to clear links between online advertising platforms and the exploitation of vulnerable women. We have a responsibility to ensure that our laws keep pace with the changing nature of exploitation and abuse, particularly in an increasingly digital world. Measures aimed at disrupting the infrastructure that facilitates sexual exploitation deserve support. For that reason, we will support the amendment.

Finally, amendment Nos 88 and 89 represent the Northern Ireland equivalent of Ruby's law. These amendments recognise something that many survivors of domestic abuse and those working in the sector have understood for a long time: abusers frequently use animals as a means of coercion, control and intimidation. Threatening to harm a family pet, harming an animal or using an animal to exert psychological pressure can have a devastating impact on victims and their children. For many households, pets are cherished members of the family. Abusers know that, and, in some cases, they deliberately exploit those emotional bonds in order to maintain control. Domestic abuse is about power and coercion. It is about creating fear and limiting the autonomy of the other person. These amendments rightly recognise that threats against animals can form part of that pattern of abuse and should be treated accordingly. By explicitly recognising threats or harm to animals as behaviour that is capable of constituting domestic abuse, these amendments strengthen protection for victims and ensure that the law reflects the reality of coercive control as it is experienced in practice.

Taken together, the amendments modernise our law, strengthen our ability to tackle organised crime and exploitation, remove outdated offences that no longer reflect modern values and provide greater protections for victims of abuse. For all those very good reasons, the SDLP will support the amendments in this group.

Ms Sheerin: I will speak briefly on a number of the issues covered in this group of amendments. My party will support all the amendments in the group. I appreciate the clarification given earlier in the debate.

Amendment Nos 45 to 48 tackle organised crime gangs, and my party agrees with the principle of all those amendments. It is clear that they will strengthen the police's ability to tackle such criminality, and we support that. Those groups are a scourge on our society, and they cause enormous harm across our communities. As others have said, we know the damage that they do and the coercive control that they exert on many of the people whom we represent. They do not represent our communities; they harm our communities and have no place in our communities. The proposals to introduce a new definition of organised crime gangs and the new offences of participating in illegal activity related to organised crime and of directing illegal, organised crime gangs are all welcome.

We have a wee bit of concern about amendment No 46, which proposes new clause 19B. Our specific concern is that children and young people are among the most vulnerable groups and are often victims of criminal gangs. The evidence received by the Committee on the issue was referred to earlier, as was the advice from human rights organisations and the children's sector. That has almost been dealt with, in that the Minister feels that the defence specific to children has already been covered.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to offer assurance to the Member and other members of the Committee that the amendment will not cut across our work to protect children or vulnerable adults who have been coerced into committing a crime; nor will it limit the ability to refer those who have been coerced to the national referral mechanism (NRM) and provide them with the necessary supports. We would not want to be a position in which we could not do that, and it will be for the police to judge whether somebody was a willing participant in whatever organised crime activity has happened or whether they were placed under pressure to do so. We do not want to stand in the way of people getting the support that they need if they have been coerced.

Ms Sheerin: I appreciate that clarity from the Minister. The concern came from a recent presentation to the Committee, and Criminal Justice Inspection’s (CJINI) report on child criminal exploitation presented us with some worrying findings. The inspection team could see that children had been exploited, but there were zero referrals to the national referral mechanism. The findings of Criminal Justice Inspection were that there was no strategy in place and that there had been no learning.

Mrs Long: Again, I thank the Member for giving way; she has been very generous. I have raised the matter with the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. I have also raised it with the modern slavery commissioner, who is independent. It is concerning that, very often, what people see is not what they think of as slavery. People's perceptions can warp their view on whether it is an offence. Similarly, with trafficking, people assume that it means that people are being moved across boundaries or across the country. In fact, trafficking simply means to make somebody available for exploitation. Sometimes, language can be a barrier to people seeing the crime for what it is. We are working to address that, because I want to ensure that the young people and vulnerable adults who have been made available for criminal exploitation in their community and been coerced into criminal activity do not get lost but get the supports that they are entitled to as victims of modern slavery and trafficking.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for her intervention. That will be key and integral to the success of the legislation. If the police have new powers to deal with criminal gangs, organised groups, paramilitaries or whatever you want to call them, we have to ensure that there is a twin-track approach and that all issues are dealt with holistically. As well as having increased powers to punish those who are directing crime, we should have support systems in place and acknowledge the socio-economic factors that lead people from deprived areas to become victims of gangs in the first place. We heard from the Independent Reporting Commission that paramilitarism cannot be tackled through criminal justice measures alone. However, we are content that the amendments are being included for the right reasons and that the outcome should be positive. We support the amendments on that basis.

I will touch very briefly on some of the other issues in this group. Ciara Ferguson will go into more detail on amendment No 70, which is about repealing the historic legislation that criminalised vagrancy. We have already had contributions from across the Chamber on the fact that the language that was used in that law, which predated partition, was antiquated, grossly offensive and completely lacking in empathy or compassion. We want to change that. During the Committee Stage, we had conversations about whether or not there was a need for replacement legislation, and we are quite reluctant in our support of that because we are not quite sure of the perceived gaps. However, we are happy to support those amendments today and watch how that plays out.

I also want to touch on amendment No 73, which abolishes the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. Of course, Sinn Féin supports that amendment. There is absolutely no place for criminalisation of blasphemy in a modern, pluralist society. As someone who exclaims "Ó a Dhia"

a couple of hundred times a day, I am definitely on board with that. We will support amendment No 73.

I also want to briefly mention Mr Frew's amendments on domestic abuse involving animals, namely amendment Nos 88 and 89. My colleague Aoife Finnegan will touch on those in more detail. Initially, we were concerned about those amendments and worried that they would perhaps water down the grievous nature of domestic violence and have the unintended consequence of minimising victims' pain and suffering. However, after having spoken with Sonya McMullan from Women's Aid and having listened to the research, it became very clear that not only are animals being used as a means to torture victims, they are also suffering in those scenarios themselves. It has a very progressive and powerful message to send in that it completely dispels any notion or myth, which we sometimes have as a by-product of the pro-contact model, that an abuser will abuse a victim because of something that the victim has done or because the victim is somehow complicit in their own suffering and somehow to blame. This exposes the fact that an abuser will abuse whoever they can get away with abusing, so an innocent animal will be a victim as well.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. She is on the exact same page as I am and, indeed, as the Minister is. I have no doubt about that. There is no issue with amendment No 88 with regard to what it does with the various orders. That is sound. The issue is in the wording of amendment No 89 and the definition used to describe domestic abuse. That is the issue that we have to get round. I have given the commitment to the Minister, and I will give the same commitment to you: I will work as diligently as I can with Department and the Minister to try to resolve that issue so that the spirit of the amendment exists and stays as it is but we make it fit our model of legislation.

Ms Sheerin: I appreciate the Member providing that clarification. I know that there was conversation on the inclusion of commercial animals as well as just domestic pets, and I believe that you have given a commitment to include that as well. With all that said, I am content with this part of the debate.

Ms Egan: This is a really interesting group of amendments, and they cover a lot of ground. Many of them can bring a lot of strength to our justice system in Northern Ireland.

I will begin with Minister Long's proposals regarding the creation of new organised crime offences. We need to work together across our society to do all that we can to tackle the hold that organised crime, paramilitary or otherwise, has on our communities. I am proud to be in Alliance — a party that priorities tackling that at every turn. Whether it is damage to property, intimidation and coercion, hate crime, financial crime or threats to life, such behaviour has no place in our communities. With that being said, Alliance welcomes the amendments relating to organised crime from Minister Long.

As she said in her opening remarks on the group, those new offences will create additional tools for law enforcement.

Amendment No 46 brings a new clause to the Bill that creates an offence of participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group. Amendment No 47 creates an offence of directing those criminal activities. People who willingly participate in or direct criminal activities need to face the appropriate consequences. The significant penalties that are associated with those offences send a clear message from the Assembly that organised crime will not be tolerated.

I am particularly proud to propose amendment No 73 in the group, which abolishes the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in Northern Ireland. That is a long-standing policy position of the Alliance Party. The fact that we still have blasphemy legislation on the statute books is outrageous to me, especially as this society does so much to promote freedom to practise, and freedom from, religion. We are the sole outlier on these islands where it is still the case. The legislation itself dates back to the 1800s. The legislation that I am targeting specifically with that removal includes sections from the Criminal Libel Act 1819, the Libel Act 1843, the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881 and the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888, as well as blasphemy common law offences.

I am not tabling the amendment to target or to scare any religious group into feeling that they are not welcome in Northern Ireland. I have been deliberate in ensuring that it does not leave any vulnerabilities or gaps in protections for those who practise and value their faith here. We have a solid evidence base that we can look to in the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, as they have removed blasphemy from their statute books. I am confident that, if the amendment is passed, there will be no unforeseen consequences.

I thank the Bill Office team for supporting me in the drafting of my amendment and everyone who has engaged with me. Whilst there is no formal statutory duty to engage with stakeholders when tabling an amendment to an Executive Bill, I wanted the input of many across the region. They included many leaders of religious groups in Northern Ireland, such as the different Christian denominations, the Interfaith Forum, the Northern Ireland Humanists, the Evangelical Alliance and the National Secular Society. The positive reception from, and constructive dialogue with, all those groups and individuals on that and many other matters have been most welcome and incredibly valuable.

One of the questions that I was asked most during those consultation meetings was whether that legislation had ever actually been used for a prosecution in Northern Ireland. I, and many others, have looked into that. The answer is no. Instead, we have other laws that are used, such as the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which includes the criminal offence of incitement to religious hatred. I want to make it clear that my amendment will not affect that.

The question that then follows is this: why do it? Why remove that offence that is never used? When I engaged with the police, I asked what would happen if someone rang them and reported blasphemy as a crime. They confirmed to me that they would have to investigate it and send a file to the PPS for consideration. I am sure that I am not the only one in the Chamber who thinks that there are better things that our Police Service could be doing.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way and her amendment. Does she agree that there is a differentiation to be made between supporting her amendment to remove the offence of blasphemy, and the potential criminal action that comes from it, and defining religious freedom? While I am not religious myself, I believe that people should have the right to practise religion. Does she agree that those are two different and separate issues?

Ms Egan: I agree. What the amendment does is send a strong message from the Chamber that we believe in freedom to practise, and freedom from, religion. I will come on to that in my next point.

One of the key reasons why I wanted to table the amendment was to promote equal standards of faith protections globally. Across the world, many people are persecuted for their faith under blasphemy laws. Earlier this year, I, alongside other MLAs, attended the launch of the 2026 Open Doors' World Watch List, which highlighted serious concerns from countries across the globe, such as Iran, Libya and Yemen, where Christians are being persecuted for practising their faith. As the Justice Minister already highlighted, the UK Government must be able to intervene and send a strong message that that persecution is totally unacceptable. The existence of blasphemy and blasphemous libel as offences in Northern Ireland creates a hypocrisy. It diminishes the weight of the UK's vital interventions in that space. I hope that I have the support of all parties and Members to finally abolish those archaic provisions.

Amendment No 70, tabled by the Justice Minister, repeals section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act and the 1847 Vagrancy (Ireland) Act. Those Acts contain more archaic offences that have no place in a modern society. Homelessness needs a social welfare response, not a criminal one. Those Acts' provisions operate only to criminalise a wide range of poverty-related behaviours, including criminalising rough sleeping in Northern Ireland. They do not represent what I, my party and the majority of people across this region think about homelessness. There was plenty of discussion on that in the Justice Committee evidence sessions. During those, we found out that the PSNI does not currently enforce vagrancy provisions, which, again, highlights their outdated nature. It is important that we do not criminalise people who are simply begging and not otherwise engaging in behaviour that would result in a criminal offence. In our Committee sessions, we also heard feedback from Retail NI and the business sector, which put forward concerns about criminal activity in that regard. Alliance will support amendment Nos 71 and 72, tabled by DUP colleagues, which create offences of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence and of arranging or facilitating begging for gain, if amendment No 70 is passed. Otherwise, we believe that that could put vulnerable people at further risk.

As vice-chair of the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation, I welcome amendment No 78 and thank the Members for tabling it. In the APG, we are undertaking an inquiry relating to adult services websites and the role of online platforms in facilitating trafficking and non-consensual sexual activity, which is abuse. I will never forget what I have heard in those evidence sessions about the horror and violence that is inflicted primarily upon women and teenage girls. I join the Justice Minister in paying tribute to Rebecca Whyte. Rebecca Whyte has been incredibly brave in sharing her story. I thank her for coming to the all-party group. She shares her story to help other women who are in the same situation that she and Caitlin Hanna were in. I hope that the amendment being passed today will give them some comfort that we are listening and acting.

Through our work on the APG, we heard much evidence relating to online platforms that are used to pimp out victims, usually women, and move them around the island systematically in order for them to be exploited. That movement is done to ensure that the perpetrators do not get caught but also because the victims are so beyond commodification that those who buy the services want someone new every week. The amendment creates an offence of advertising sexual services for payment, including online — on websites or social media, for example — when those services will be provided by another person. Importantly, it also brings in coercion: when the person has been coerced into offering sexual services for payment. It covers cases where women have been trafficked and where they are being coerced. Alliance is of the impression that those measures will help reduce sexual exploitation across the island and assist law enforcement with bringing to justice those who cause such egregious harm.

I now move to the DUP amendments that seek to introduce Ruby's law to Northern Ireland. Domestic violence and abuse have no place in our society. Coercive control of any kind, including through the use of animals, is insidious. All of us, across the Assembly, must condemn it. Amendment No 88 amends the 1998 Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order in order to explicitly recognise as a form of coercive control harm or threats to harm companion animals. My Alliance Party colleagues and I plan to support that amendment to civil law, and I thank the Members for tabling it.

From my understanding, the DUP's latter amendment on that matter is split into two parts, the first of which amends the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) to specify:

as behaviour amounting to domestic abuse.

I appreciate the intent behind that, but I want to recognise the fact that our legislation in Northern Ireland was designed in the first place not to specify types of abusive behaviour for this reason: to create a broad and flexible definition of domestic abuse that could include such factors as the abuse of or threats to pets as a tool of coercion and control from the outset.

The second part looks at including animals in domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs). That also ensures that the regulation of DAPOs takes an approach that is consistent with some civil orders, including non-molestation orders. I was glad to hear the proposer of the amendments, Paul Frew, agree to work with the Justice Minister and her Department to ensure that we can get the legislation right, because it is a really important issue. The use of animals in domestic abuse is completely unacceptable, and we need to make sure that those protections are there. I welcome that, and, hopefully, we will come back to it at Further Consideration Stage to ensure that we get the legislation right. It will be beneficial, and, for that reason, the Alliance Party supports the amendments.

Mr Burrows: I will try to be brief and to make up some time, because the issues have been well discussed and a lot of clarity has been given.

I support amendment Nos 45 to 48 on organised crime. It is right that we strengthen our provisions to support the police in bringing those who engage in organised crime to justice. I can move on from that. It is important legislation, and I am glad to support it.

I support the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It is legislation from a bygone era. As the Member for North Antrim said, it was often used to target those who had come back from war after serving their country and were lying rough. It is no coincidence that, some years later, in 1890, Rudyard Kipling wrote that great poem 'Tommy':

When the guns fell silent and the men had served their duty, they were often left on the streets and arrested under those old laws.

There is one difficulty with repealing the Vagrancy Act, which lies around the ability of the police to use what is called the "enclosed premises" offence, which I have used. It is important that that offence is protected. I am therefore glad that it is protected in amendment No 71. It is important, because there are times when the police find someone who clearly has criminal intent but is not committing a prima facie offence. Let me give you an example. If you hear something in your rear garden at 2.00 am and see someone there who, you believe, is going to burgle your house, that person has not yet committed attempted burglary, because they have not even tried to get into the house. Unless they have weapons or tools with them, they have not committed the offence of "Going equipped for stealing". However, if they are in your garden and you believe that they are trying to commit a burglary, the "enclosed premises" offence can be used. I am glad that Mr Frew has filled that gap. There was a gap, because the police use that offence, and it is useful.

I fully support the amendment on organised begging. It is right that we do not treat people who are genuinely begging as criminals. However, anyone who profiteers from begging, organises it or uses it as a business model is, in fact, an organised criminal. I caution — I do not see it covered by that legislation — that there are some people who are beggars, if you like, but that is a deception, because they live a different kind of life. That happens more in other jurisdictions, particularly in London, where, for some, begging is their employment, and they go home to a nice home. It is right that we target those who organise begging and use genuinely vulnerable people and that we do not treat those who are in need as anything other than people who are vulnerable and in need of support.

My party and I support the amendments on blasphemy. As far as I am aware, those offences have never been used. Were they to be used today for a straightforward act of blasphemy, they would probably fall foul of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives you freedom of speech. I will say loud and clear however, that my concern is that there is a direction of travel, which is to say that protection for Christian speech and preaching is taken away while, increasingly, we live in an environment where free speech for Christians is heavily circumscribed.

I say some things that some Members in the Chamber recoil from. I know from having been in the police — many will know it from our society — that there are those who would recoil from arresting a Muslim preacher but would arrest a Christian preacher. You regularly see on social media Christian preachers being arrested in town centres, and on almost every occasion —.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. It would not be right to tar all religions, preachers or imams with the same brush, but does he have examples of imams or people of Islamic faith being engaged in hateful preaching in a public space in the North any time recently?

Mr Burrows: There are documented cases across the United Kingdom; in fact, there have been some exposés. By the way, I believe in true religious freedom, and I am respectful of other religions. I tend to find people who follow a religious code, even if it is different from mine, to be the most peaceable people that there are, whether or not you disagree with their religion. Of course, there has been hate preaching by all kinds of religions.

My point is that the people who are most susceptible to being arrested today in the United Kingdom are Christian preachers who are preaching in the street. That is not my kind of preaching. I do not think that that it is particularly productive, but you do see them being arrested regularly. When I follow up on those cases, on almost every occasion the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) says that no crime has been committed. I support the repeal of the blasphemy laws, but it is important that we embrace genuine free speech when it comes to Christian or other religious preaching. That means that you have to tolerate some things that you disagree with. Article 10 contains a special protection for religious preaching.

I support amendment No 78, which would insert a clause on "Advertising sexual services", and I am glad to see it. I caution those who say that there are women who are willing members of the sex trade. Certainly, a lot of the research that I have read, along with my experiences of what I have seen and feedback that I have got from family members who work in this, indicates that that is often not a true choice.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will gladly give way.

Ms Nicholl: I knew that it would be taken this way.

Mr Burrows: It is not a true choice.

Ms Nicholl: Well, you said that people were implying that it was a choice and you did not believe it was a choice. When I made my comments, I said that it was a contested view. There are radical feminists who believe that any form of prostitution is violence against women and girls. There is a spectrum of views. My point is that I have worked with sex workers who said that, if they were to come up against an issue — this was at the time of Lord Morrow's Bill — they were worried that it would be more difficult for them to get support from the police. I separated that out and said that we absolutely needed to dismantle the infrastructure of trafficking. We support Paul Frew's amendment, and we think that it is worthy.

My point was simply that there are women — I have met them; I know them — who, for whatever reasons — I do not cast judgement. I do not want anyone to have to engage in sex work, but it is one of the oldest trades in history. My question was about how those women who could be more vulnerable could be made more vulnerable and whether that had been considered. I do not want to make a big statement about how prostitution or sex work is something that all women want to get into. I just want to recognise that it is a fact and that there are some women who choose that. They have told me about their lived experience, and it is about respecting that and ensuring that they have the support that they need.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Member for her intervention. Indeed, there are men around the world who are involved in providing sexual services. I genuinely believe that, in the vast majority of cases, even if someone says that they are committed to it or want to do it, there are deep, underlying traumas that have caused the position that they are in. They should be helped and supported, and we should absolutely target those who engage in the vile trade of treating women as objects, so I fully support that.

I am a great supporter of the PSNI, but I caution that it has not dealt proactively and robustly enough with the purchasing of sex. I know that the PSNI gave evidence expressing great caution about that legislation. A couple of people who happened to be serving police officers were recently convicted, and the PSNI rightly took a robust view. However, I expect the Police Service of Northern Ireland to fully embrace the legislation and bring to book, with proactive investigations and operations, those who advertise the sexual services of women in our society.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I chaired the Justice Committee when Lord Morrow's private Member's Bill came through. Like the Member, I am concerned at the PSNI's failure to properly take forward prosecutions for payment for sexual services. The Assembly passed that legislation a number of years ago. Most parties supported it, although Alliance did not. Supporting it was the right thing to do then, and the amendment tabled by Paul Frew is the right one.

I had young people in the Assembly at the time of the passage of Lord Morrow's Bill. The female students said that they found the objectification of women abhorrent, and they supported the inclusion of the criminalisation of payment for sexual services. The debate that took place with the boys was interesting. It is really important that we continue to use legislation to send the message, but it has to be more than just a message; it has to be followed up by successful implementation. The previous law has not been implemented in the way that it should have been. I welcome the Member's support for my colleague Mr Frew's amendment.

Mr Burrows: I agree that that Act was not proactively enforced. There was a cultural reluctance about enforcement for whatever reason. The evidential threshold turned out to be a lot lower than the PSNI had previously said. Some former police officers were recently convicted purely on the basis of text messages that were found on a phone that had been seized for something else. We should therefore take every opportunity to take out of business and put behind bars those who trade women as objects.

Mr Frew: I thank Jon for giving way. We have passed other laws in the House, including the child protection disclosure scheme, which was the result of an amendment that I tabled to another Justice Bill. The police seem very slow in advertising to parents and others out there that the child protection disclosure scheme is available for them to apply to for information on people who could be a risk to their children. The police do not seem to want to advertise that.

Mr Burrows: I do not want to praise the Member too much; that might start rumours. There are other laws, such as the one that allows a person to find out whether someone has been involved in domestic violence — is it Clare's law? — that are not proactively advertised enough by the Department of Justice. Few people whom I meet know —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, I believe that others in the Chair and I have given ample latitude for setting context and background, but the outworkings of previous Bills are not relevant to this Bill, certainly not to the extent that they are being discussed. I urge Members to return to the amendments at hand and would be grateful if they did so.

Mr Burrows: I would be delighted, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I will swiftly move on to Ruby's law, which I fully support. It is well known that I am a dog lover. Pets are part of the family. In domestic violence cases and in troubled households, the pet is often an untrained therapy dog. It can be a lifeline for people.

I agree with both amendments. I am glad that the second one will be tidied up to make sure that it is fit for purpose. Ultimately, we need to get a grip on threats to harm animals and recognise that some female victims of domestic violence may not want to leave an abusive relationship, particularly when children are involved, because of their love of animals. I welcome that amendment. It should be extended to cover commercial animals. We should do a lot more about animals in domestic violence situations. Frankly, a repeat domestic violence perpetrator should not have access to pets,. There is a huge overlap between people who are domestic violence perpetrators and people who abuse animals. We should have zero tolerance of those people, who are vile abusers of other people.

I support all the amendments.

Ms Finnegan: I will speak on amendment Nos 78 and 88. Amendment No 78 recognises the important objective that sits behind it. The advertising of sexual services cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader issues of exploitation, coercion and human trafficking. While there are often differing perspectives on how best to approach those complex matters, there should be broad agreement that our laws must do everything possible to protect vulnerable individuals from exploitation and abuse.

Organisations working on the front line of such issues have repeatedly highlighted the role that advertising platforms can play in facilitating exploitation. Increasingly, those involved in organised criminal activity utilise online platforms and digital technologies to recruit, control and profit from vulnerable people. Human trafficking remains a serious concern across these islands and beyond. Victims are frequently subjected to intimidation, violence, coercion and manipulation. Many are hidden in plain sight. When considering amendment No 78, we must remember that behind every statistic is a human being whose rights, dignity and safety have been violated. The Assembly's all-party group on human trafficking and exploitation has consistently highlighted the need for stronger measures to disrupt exploitation and support victims. We welcome the continued focus on that issue. The amendment would address one aspect of a wider problem that should be viewed as part of a broader effort to tackle trafficking, organised crime and sexual exploitation. Protecting vulnerable people must remain our priority.

We strongly support amendment No 88 and welcome the recognition that it gives to the realities of domestic abuse and coercive control. Over the years, our understanding of domestic abuse has developed significantly. We know that abuse is not limited to physical violence; it can involve a pattern of behaviour designed to intimidate, isolate, manipulate and control another person. Threats or acts of cruelty towards family pets are one such depraved form of coercive and controlling behaviour.

For many families, pets are not simply animals but loved companions and valued members of the household. Abusers understand that emotional bond and, in many cases, deliberately exploit it to exercise power and control over their victims. The first time that I encountered that type of abuse was when a constituent's came to my office. She had made the very difficult decision to leave an abusive partner and the home that they shared, but she was forced to leave behind a beloved dog when she fled for her safety. In the weeks that followed, she asked her abusive ex-partner whether she could see the dog that she loved so dearly. Her former partner told her that she could see the dog but only when she returned to him. The risk to her safety was simply too great, and, as a result, she never saw that dog again.

It was never about love or care for the animal on the abuser's end; the dog was being used as a tool of coercion and control. He understood the bond that she had with her pet and exploited that bond to cause further distress, maintain power over her and continue the abuse long after she left the relationship. It was a stark example of how perpetrators can weaponise not only relationships and children but family pets to manipulate, intimidate and emotionally harm their victims. Evidence from domestic abuse organisations shows that victims may delay leaving abusive relationships because they fear what will happen to their pets if they do. Others remain silent because threats against animals are used as a means of intimidation. They are not isolated incidents; they form part of a wider pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that can have devastating consequences for victims and their families.

At its core, domestic abuse is about power, control and intimidation. Abusers will seek to exploit whatever means are available to them in order to cause fear and distress to their victim and to maintain control over them. It does not matter whether that abuse is directed towards a person, a horse, a dog or any other animal that a victim loves or cares for.

An abuser will use whatever they believe will inflict the greatest emotional harm. That is why threats against or acts of cruelty towards animals must be recognised for exactly what they are: another tool of coercion and control in an abusive relationship. It also indicates how dangerous these abusers are in that nobody is safe in their presence. The amendment recognises that reality and acknowledges that threats against animals can be every bit as intimidating and controlling as other forms of abuse and should be considered within the legal framework accordingly.

Importantly, the amendment sends a clear message that domestic abuse needs to be understood in all of its forms. It demonstrates a willingness to listen to victims and learn from evidence, and it strengthens protections where gaps have been identified. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that our laws reflect the lived experiences of those affected by abuse. This amendment will help to achieve that object, and, for those reasons, Sinn Féin is pleased to support the amendment.

Mr Kingston: I rise as a DUP member of the Justice Committee to comment on the amendments that we have proposed in group 3, which cover a range of matters.

Amendment No 70 would repeal offences in the Vagrancy Act 1824. Whilst we accept that people are very rarely arrested or prosecuted just for the offences of rough sleeping or begging, we are concerned that repealing those offences could leave insufficient powers, influence and tools for the Police Service of Northern Ireland to address cases of trespass or obstruction, of begging that causes nuisance and intimidation and of organised begging. Those concerns were raised with us in Justice Committee evidence sessions, including from city centre retail groups, the PSNI and academics who specialise in the topic. Therefore, the DUP has tabled two amendments, amendment No 71, which introduces an offence of trespassing with intent to commit criminal offence, and amendment No 72, which introduces an offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain.

From time to time, I hear from constituents, particularly women, that they have been subject to harassment in Belfast city centre. I recognise that people who are sleeping rough generally have complex issues. Indeed, the Complex Lives programme, led by Belfast City Council and other statutory agencies, seeks to support some of our city's most vulnerable people to help break the cycle of chronic homelessness. However, I am concerned that the public impression that rough sleeping and begging on the streets are legal activities without restriction could result in an increase in nuisance behaviour, including intimidating and threatening behaviour, to the detriment of shoppers and shopkeepers. Therefore, having taken advice, we believe that our amendments strike the right balance in ensuring that the police have the appropriate tools at their disposal, if required, to address and prevent behaviour that makes other people feel at risk. In those circumstances, we are supporting the repeal of the Vagrancy Act.

Amendment No 73 proposes the repeal of blasphemy law. We in the DUP believe that faith and belief, which are private matters for each of us, also have an important place in common life in the public square. We recognise the foundation of Christian values that have underpinned much of our common law and our constitution in the United Kingdom. Whilst acknowledging the diversity of beliefs that now exists in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, including all the major world faiths and people of no belief, our experience over many years has been that some political parties and humanist groups wish to actively drive faith out of the public square, out of public ceremonies and out of our schools and institutions. We are mindful that it is popular for people in some circles, particularly left-wing circles, to be derogatory towards Christian faith and belief in a way that they would not be towards other world faiths and beliefs.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will, briefly.

Mr Carroll: I consider myself to be part of the left-wing family and come from that perspective. Can the Member give an example of left-wing circles and groups mocking the Christian faith? That is new to me and will be new to many who describe themselves as left wing. It is a bizarre comment. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: OK. When the Member watches, for example, left-wing comedians on TV and how they refer to the Christian faith, he might wish to compare that with how they refer to other faiths. Many of them would not be derogatory towards other world faiths in the same way that they are prepared to be towards Christianity.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? [Inaudible.]

Mr Kingston: I have given you an example.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member giving way. He has been kind with his time. Is he seriously going to vote on the amendment based on what supposedly left-wing comedians in Britain do or say? If that really is his assertion, it is a pretty strange perspective to take on why he will vote a certain way on an amendment.

Mr Kingston: I do not know if the Member listened to the rest of what I said. I am saying that we value the role of faith not just in private life but historically. Faith has an important role to play in public life today through the values that it portrays such as care for others. We support faith having that role in the public square. Some people try to push it out: that is their agenda, and they are entitled to have it. We have the agenda of upholding recognition of faith in public life.

I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: I share the Member's respect for faith traditions. As a Christian, I believe that it is right and proper that we should be able to discuss and practise our faith openly in the public domain, and that it should not be have to be hidden away. I disagree with the Member, however, in that I believe that people also have a right, under freedom of conscience and belief, to not have a faith and to live their lives free of faith. We should not use blasphemy law or the threat of blasphemy law to impose our faith and beliefs on other people or to circumscribe what opinions people are allowed to hold and express. The Member's party has, I think, championed free speech to date, but it seems that that free speech is allowed only if the DUP agrees with what is being said. That is a real challenge in this society. When I chaired the Westminster all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on international freedom of religion or belief, it was called "an orphaned right": it was said that the left did not like it because it involved religion, and the right did not like it because it gave people freedom to dissent. That has been exposed clearly here this afternoon.

Mr Kingston: I do not agree with the conclusion that the Minister claims to take from what I said. The Christian faith, in particular, has an important role in our country's constitution and in many of our ceremonies. I do not believe that that prevents people of other faiths or people who have no beliefs from taking part. It is relevant to the values that have underpinned the development of our country. That is why —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I feel that we are repeating ourselves, but carry on.

Mrs Long: Hopefully, this intervention will allow us to move things on. Let us take a country that is not Northern Ireland and where, for example, the Islamic tradition has been the foundation. Do you agree with countries that persecute people who want to convert to Christianity under blasphemy laws; that prevent people taking a bible home; that do not allow people to meet privately for prayer in their home; where people have to register their church on a list; and where prosecution for such blasphemy against Islam can result in death? On the basis that it is OK for us to do it because Christianity is important here, do you accept that it is OK for those countries to do that because Islam is important there, or do you agree with me that people should be free, without fear of prosecution, to hold, change, practise, observe and speak about their religion, and to disagree with any religion, irrespective of what religion it is?

Mr Kingston: The Minister is taking an extreme view. She is talking about people being imprisoned and even executed on the basis of religion, and we do not support that. The United Kingdom has a proud tradition as a liberal democracy that respects diversity. That is why, as a country, it is respected across the world and is an example to many other nations. When I speak to groups, I always talk about the soft power of the United Kingdom. It is one of the most respected countries, because it respects diversity, but it also has Christian values at its core. Those are values that everyone can subscribe to, and they include democracy.

I will move on because I feel as though we are going round in circles.

Ms Egan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Well, let me finish off —. OK. I will take one more intervention, given that we are not under a time limit, if the Deputy Speaker is obliging.

Ms Egan: Thank you. I appreciate the fact that you have been generous with your interventions. It is a different question. If you are going to vote against my amendment, you must think that blasphemy legislation should remain on the statute book. You are perfectly entitled to think that and to vote that way, but I am struggling with your argument. You made the point that you see some groups making offensive remarks about the Christian religion. Have you called the police about those groups? Blasphemy is a crime that is on the statute book, so have you asked the Minister of Justice to produce sentencing guidelines for the crimes of blasphemy and blasphemous libel? If you want that provision to remain on the statute book, do you think that it should be used? For me, the fact that it is not used is an argument to get rid of it, because, being superfluous, it does not matter. It should not be there if it is never used. It is about updating our legislation.

I agree with a lot of what you are you saying — Christianity is a valued religion in this society — but I want everybody to be able to freely express their religion, which is why I tabled the amendment.

Mr Kingston: At various times in my years as an elected representative, I have seen situations in which people wish to take faith, particularly the Christian faith, out of institutions. When people try to do that in our schools and in relation to ceremonies, we will always speak up for the place of faith in the public square.

You are all acknowledging where I am likely to end up in my comments. We are concerned that, although blasphemy laws have not been used in prosecutions in recent times, their repeal will be seen, in public messaging, as a victory for those who wish to diminish respect for belief, including those who wish to be derogatory towards belief, and who wish to reduce the role of faith in public life. We will not, therefore, support amendment No 73. We have had a reasonable debate on it.

Perhaps there will be more agreement on amendment No 78, which creates an offence of advertising sexual services in exchange for payment. As I mentioned, I am a member of the recently formed all-party group (APG) on modern slavery and commercial sexual exploitation. The APG is conducting an inquiry into the online advertising of sexual services, which is the subject of the amendment. The internet has provided the means to transform the selling of all types of goods and services, including the selling of sexual services on so-called pimping websites. The evidence that has so far been provided to the APG is very disturbing. Such sites operate beyond most people's awareness, yet they hide in plain sight. Studies using the sexual trafficking identification matrix (STIM) assessment reveal a high prevalence of indicators of trafficking in the advertising women on the sites.

Many of the women being exploited are under the impression that they have been brought to Northern Ireland, the UK or Ireland for employment, only to find themselves trapped in prostitution. My colleague Paul Frew referred to the BBC documentary about the life and death of Caitlin Hanna, a girl from north Belfast who was trafficked for sexual exploitation in other parts of Belfast and who died in March 2022. As the Justice Minister said, trafficking does not necessarily involve moving someone to another country.

One brave witness who addressed the APG explained that she thought that she was in a relationship with a man who gave her a drink containing an unknown drug. That lead to years of addiction, during which she was sexually exploited through prostitution in order to get the drug that her addiction demanded. She was regularly drugged before appointments and had no say in whom she was booked for.

She told us that such prostitution is rife across Northern Ireland and is growing faster than ever. Some of the women whom she worked with were killed by drugs overdoses. She believes that she was given an overdose at one stage in order to kill her, but she survived. Ultimately, her abuser — her pimp — was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison. She told us that paramilitaries are up to their necks in sexual exploitation.

In any debate on this matter, some will claim that some people engage in prostitution by choice as a source of income. While that may be the case for a small number of people, the research provided to us by Ruth Breslin of the Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy Institute (SERPI), who analysed four pimping websites active in Northern Ireland, indicated that only 5% to 10% of the women advertised could be considered sex workers by choice, whereas 90%-plus were clearly either trafficked or vulnerable, including many who were from overseas. We hope that our amendment will be supported at this stage.

Finally, I commend to the House amendment Nos 88 and 89 on preventing domestic abuse involving threats or harm to animals.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I call another Member to speak, I remind everyone that we will suspend the sitting for a break at around 6.00 pm. Members should bear that in mind in the event that I have to interrupt them.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not take that long.

I start by thanking Aoibheann and Jack from Rathmore Grammar School and Joel from Bangor Grammar School who helped with my research for this speech. I am delighted to speak on amendment Nos 45 to 48, as they deal with a major issue that greatly affects our communities. As the Minister noted, Northern Ireland is now the only part of the UK with no bespoke organised crime legislation, despite the unfortunate deeply embedded nature of it in our society. The proposed amendments create much-needed clarity for our criminal justice system and empower it to identify and take action against organised crime and those who engage in such activity across Northern Ireland. We all know that organised crime groups cause enormous harm to people in Northern Ireland, and generations have been exploited by such groups. The proposed amendments seek to address the legacy of organised crime in our communities and stop the exploitation of communities that leads to educational underachievement, family breakdown, substance abuse and so much more.

With the appropriate amendments to make the legislation work in practice, it will provide a pragmatic approach to combating organised crime and ensuring that those involved face repercussions. It must be remembered that this is a real issue affecting real people in our communities. I know that the Minister of Justice is passionate about addressing this and, as such, it should be dealt with practically and efficiently. The amendments set out what specifically constitutes organised crime, which can take many forms, and define and specify and empower and ensure that organised crime can be dealt with effectively, called out and not allowed to fall under the radar.

I want to touch on a few other things. I really enjoyed Mr Frew's explanation of the vagrancy laws. He really brought it to life, and there was a wonderful historical context behind it. I really enjoy his contributions, even in length.

In case there was any misconception about what I said, I clarify that I support amendment No 75. Dismantling trafficking infrastructure is very important. When we as legislators look at amendments, we need to make sure that we consider their full impact. There are some very vulnerable women out there who could be made more vulnerable. It was just to put that on the record. I appreciate the work that has been done, and I know that the Minister has done a lot in the Department.

This is my final point. I told my group that I was going to speak for only a minute on organised crime, but I just have to touch on the blasphemy laws. Repealing them is about protecting against religious persecution and bringing us into line with the rest of the UK. As you know, dead law can be revived at any time. The Assembly may not always have such sensible, compassionate people in it, so our laws have to reflect our values and what we want. Everyone in the House wants to protect against religious persecution, and that is what this really is about: making sure that blasphemy laws do not violate against the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief. It is so important that we are brought into line. I thank my colleague Connie Egan, who has done so much work on the issue, I thank the Minister for being so passionate, and I thank everyone who intends to support the amendment.

Finally, there is so much important work in the Justice Bill, and this is the work that we are meant to do. I thank the Justice Minister for all her work and other Members for tabling amendments. We started the day having conversations that may not reflect all of us, as happens when we get into the politics. This, however, is our job: it is about shaping our laws and creating a future for the next generation. When the Assembly looks to the future and at how we can craft laws that will make life better for everyone in this society, that is when we are doing the real work and our real job. I thank everyone involved in the Bill, but especially my party leader, the Minister of Justice.

Ms Ferguson: I will focus on amendment No 70. For two centuries, the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 have enabled and upheld the criminalisation of homelessness, and we all recognise that that is shameful. That archaic and stigmatising legislation utilises terms such as "rogues" and "vagabonds" to reference those who are experiencing chronic homelessness, and it singles out people with disabilities, which is totally inappropriate, insulting and unethical. That legislation needs to be repealed.

Whilst I welcome the fact that the PSNI has said that no arrests or prosecutions have been made under section 4 of the 1824 Act, it is important to remove from the statute book legislation that stigmatises and criminalises rough sleeping. Additionally, the PSNI stressed to the Committee that rough sleeping consumes a lot of its time, the police being the first point of contact when it is reported. The PSNI indicated that there is a need for others to be more prominent in that space, and I reflect on the fact that the number of households with homeless status has risen by 122% to over 33,000 households, and our homelessness charities are significantly constrained by short-term funding arrangements, including quarterly settlements.

The 'Street Needs Audit' conducted in Belfast, Derry and Newry identified 288 individuals engaged in some form of street activity, including rough sleeping. As our colleagues in Homeless Connect stated:

A range of front-line homeless support charities echoed that view. Whilst there may be commonalities, different people need different forms and levels of support to transition out of homelessness into sustainable housing, rather than being stigmatised and criminalised.

I have repeatedly welcomed the work of the Complex Lives initiative in Belfast City Council, which works in collaboration with voluntary and community sector organisations and statutory partners. I would like to see the initiative rolled out in Derry and beyond in recognition of the fact that a trauma-informed, collaborative approach is much more likely than any punitive measure to generate positive change.

I will briefly touch on two DUP amendments, Nos 71 and 72. The amendments replicate those that were brought forward in the Crime and Policing Bill in Westminster. Amendment No 71 replicates clause 53 by making it an offence to trespass on an enclosed premises or building with the intent of committing an offence. The PSNI advised the Committee that it was concerned that not having such legislation could leave a gap in enforcement. Likewise, amendment No 72 replicates clause 52 by making it a specific offence to arrange or facilitate another person's begging for gain, which was deemed important to allow the police to tackle the criminal gangs and the exploitation of vulnerable people. It should be noted that the PSNI advised the Committee that no current evidence exists of organised crime linked to begging. Whilst the amendments in question do not explicitly criminalise homelessness, at this stage, we will cautiously welcome them, given that the PSNI has noted the potential for an enforcement gap. However, the provisions will need to be carefully monitored to ensure that they are not misused, do not de facto replace vagrancy legislation and do not inadvertently contribute to the stigmatisation, marginalisation or exclusion of those who are experiencing homelessness or poverty.

It is also notable that the PSNI indicated to the Committee that the data pertaining to the signposting to other agencies of those detected as begging is not readily accessible on the police system. However, we know that, between January 2018 and June 2025, police received 721 calls involving the offence of begging, 715 of which were recorded and 255 of which received community resolution notices. The Minister had previously advised us of her intention to oppose the amendments, but, as she alluded to in her speech, she now believes that they are necessary, so it might be useful to hear from the Minister whether she would —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mrs Long: Just to be clear, I still do not believe that they are necessary, but I also do not believe that they are harmful. If they provide the reassurance needed to get the vagrancy law repealed, they are worth accepting on that basis.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for that update. It would be useful to know whether you would also consider a review of that new addition to the legislation within a short time frame after commencement to consider whether the changes are proportionate and justified and, as stated, will not impact negatively on those who find themselves facing homelessness.

Chronic homelessness and simple begging are frequently driven by underlying vulnerabilities, including extreme poverty, trauma, adverse childhood experience and addiction. Sinn Féin does not believe that the use of a criminal sanction is the best way to respond to what is, in most cases, a social problem. As the 2024 report from the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights indicated:

I will finish by welcoming the repeal of the Vagrancy Acts and calling for unanimous support in the Chamber for that progressive change. I can only hope that it is strengthened by the roll-out of Complex Lives in Derry, substantial investment in affordable housing and the sustainability of vital wrap-around support services for those who are experiencing homelessness.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, as you know, the Business Committee has agreed to have an evening suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 6.30 pm. The debate on this group of amendments will continue at that time, and the first Member to be called will be Maurice Bradley.

Mr Bradley: I see that the Chamber is full to hear my speech.

I rise as a member of the Justice Committee to speak on this group of amendments, with particular reference to amendment Nos 70, 71, 72 and 78. My colleague Diane Forsythe will address amendment Nos 88 and 89 shortly.

I refer to amendment Nos 45 to 48. Without repeating many of the valid points that have already been raised, I support the Minister's amendments.

On the repeal of blasphemy laws, I will make only one comment. There are many religions, but, for anyone of Christian belief, there is only one faith: anyone can freely pick up a Bible and discover it.

Amendment No 70 repeals the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847. Those are outdated laws that belong to a different era and do not reflect modern attitudes towards homelessness and vulnerability. I support the Minister's amendment. Criminalising those individuals is not the solution. They need support and intervention rather than outdated legislation. However, while I support the repeal of the vagrancy laws, I must also recognise the concerns raised by residents, businesses and communities about the antisocial behaviour and criminal activity that is associated with some street-based offending. That is why amendment Nos 71 and 72 are important. As a joint proposer of amendment No 71, I believe that it provides a sensible and proportionate replacement by creating the offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence. That is not about targeting vulnerable people but about targeting those who enter premises or enclosed areas intending to commit theft, criminal damage or other offences. Property owners and businesses have a right to protection. The law should provide the necessary tools to deal with criminal behaviour before further offences occur.

Amendment No 72 addresses the exploitation of vulnerable people through organised begging. It is well recognised that, in some cases, individuals are encouraged, controlled or exploited by others who profit from their circumstances. As a joint proposer of the amendment, I believe that the focus should be on those who arrange or facilitate begging for gain and not on those who are themselves vulnerable. The amendment targets exploitation and criminality while recognising the need for support for those experiencing genuine hardship.

I also support amendment No 78, which recognises that advertising sexual services is often intrinsically linked to the exploitation and commodification of vulnerable individuals. It is important that the organisers are pursued vigorously and dealt with harshly by the law. We failed to deal adequately with the godfathers of terrorism. We cannot fail to deal with the godfathers of exploitation, trafficking, prostitution and sexual exploitation. We must offer support to the victims, including those who may have chosen that lifestyle. The provision would address a significant gap in the current legislative framework by targeting those who facilitate or promote prostitution through advertising platforms, including digital media.

The amendment appropriately places responsibility on individuals who knowingly publish or enable advertisements for sexual services, regardless of whether they derive financial benefit. It also provides important protection for those who may be coerced into advertising their own sexual services. The measure strengthens efforts to reduce demand, tackle exploitation and support a wider strategy aimed at protecting vulnerable people from sexual exploitation. For that reason, I ask Members to support the entire group of amendments.

Mr Martin: As chair of the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation, I thank my colleague for tabling amendment No 78, which is the one that I will speak on. I support amendment No 78 and agree with the points that Paul made. We have already heard, including from my colleague Maurice, some of the details and realities of sexual exploitation in Northern Ireland. I do not intend to repeat all of those arguments; instead, I want to touch on relevant evidence that we, as an APG, have been looking into.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Martin, will you pause for one second, so that Mr Frew can make his way to his notes?

Mr Frew: Thank you.

Mr Martin: I thought that I had broken some convention and was going to get admonished by the Deputy Speaker, but it was just my colleague taking his seat.

The APG is taking evidence and conducting an inquiry. Studies have been prevalent across the UK and Ireland, and the APG is trying to complement those studies and ensure that the situation in Northern Ireland is fully understood. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will thank, in particular, my APG deputy chair, Connie Egan, and my colleague, Brian Kingston. Both of those folk come to nearly every APG meeting. An old friend of mine once told me that God's kingdom functions on small groups of people praying; the APG functions on small numbers of people faithfully attending.

The APG has heard evidence from survivors, academics, organisations and international experts. We have heard what has been, at times, harrowing and shocking evidence of sexual exploitation. What is clearly and immediately evident to me, as chair, is that the nature of prostitution and trafficking has changed fundamentally not just in Northern Ireland but across the world. The image that many may hold of prostitution or escorts is one of people working from the streets, but that is definitely not the reality any more. Exploitation, in most of its forms, has migrated online and become digitised, scalable, in many instances hidden and vastly more profitable. The Home Affairs Committee at Westminster concluded that websites advertising prostitution are now:

Similarly, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner's report, published earlier this year, stated that multiple indicators of trafficking or exploitation are found on websites advertising escorts in the UK.

During its evidence-gathering, the APG has found similar cases of harm directly attributable to adverts in Northern Ireland. During April and May this year, researchers from CARE, assisting the all-party group, looked at each of the main platforms that advertise women in Belfast. The research will be more fully published with our report, but preliminary analysis of that data shows that indications of trafficking and exploitation are prevalent on the four main sites used to advertise women in Northern Ireland. We have found multiple women being advertised using similar profiles, which indicates that there are pimps who control several women in towns and cities in Northern Ireland. Our research has found the same mobile phone number being used as a contact point for multiple adverts, which shows that those women are trafficked and controlled by the same person. Many of the profiles offer exceptionally risky services, often for a low price. According to the University of Sheffield and its sexual trafficking identification matrix (STIM) indicators, that is another clear sign of exploitation.

While the APG will take time to study the evidence and data, we are content to say that exploitation and trafficking is taking place in the UK and Northern Ireland. Evidence that has been presented to parliamentary inquiries across the UK that are similar in scope to the one that we are undertaking in the APG has identified multiple indicators of trafficking and exploitation on those websites.

Members should pause for a minute and consider what that means in practical terms.

Northern Ireland is not dealing with isolated acts of prostitution or with escorts in hidden corners or on dark streets. It happens behind closed doors, and, in some cases, it is organised in plain sight. Organised crime is very much behind what we see, and that happens in towns across Northern Ireland.

The amendment is not particularly radical. We have an opportunity to lead in the area yet again. In 2015, my DUP colleague Lord Morrow led the way with his private Member's Bill that outlawed the purchase of sex in Northern Ireland. Therefore, by passing amendment No 78, Northern Ireland can lead the way again by being the first legislature in the UK to ensure that the operation of those sites is curtailed and that the criminal infrastructure that lies behind them starts to be dismantled.

I commend the work of the PSNI. Recently, I met Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Beck and a chief superintendent. It was a useful meeting, and they have a particularly challenging task. The problem has become so prevalent that the resources that the PSNI can task to stop the criminal gangs undoubtedly need to be increased. We need to give the PSNI the tools and resources that it needs to act, gather evidence and execute successful prosecutions. The amendment gives an additional tool in the form of a new criminal sanction to the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service, for that matter, to help them investigate and find the evidence needed to dismantle the criminal infrastructure that lies behind some of what we are talking about today.

No one is pretending that the amendment alone will solve trafficking or prostitution in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, more will be required. Better services and supports are needed for many survivors, both in the process of exiting and in the stage after that. We need stronger exit pathways, better cross-border cooperation and urgent reforms at Westminster.

As well as the colleagues that I mentioned, I thank a few people who have been helpful to the APG's work. I thank Ruth Breslin from SERPI, which works out of Dublin in the South; Eleanor Lyons, who is the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner; and the survivors of prostitution who came to the APG and told us some harrowing things in their own words. Their evidence was incredibly powerful. Finally, I thank Jessica and Tim from CARE, who provide secretariat support.

The amendment is a necessary first step in dealing with some of the issues that I have highlighted that we can take in this place today. For those reasons and having been informed by a growing body of UK and international evidence, I support and commend amendment No 78 as a first step to ending the scourge of the existence of such platforms and the profit that they make from the exploitation of women.

Ms Forsythe: I thank my colleague Paul Frew for his leadership on the consideration of the Justice Bill. I thank my colleagues Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston for their work on the Justice Committee, as well as other Justice Committee members and the Minister, as we work through such hugely significant and complex legislation. I support the position that Paul Frew put forward — at length, some might say — and my DUP colleagues. I will not rehearse the details that have already been well covered.

I will speak on our amendment Nos 88 and 89 specifically, to which I was pleased to put my name. Those amendments are on:

They would extend the domestic abuse protections to Northern Ireland to explicitly cover threats or harm to animals.

I have always been an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, and I worked in that area before becoming an MLA. I am acutely aware of the sheer evil that exists in plain sight at every level and position in our community.

Those who seek to degrade and abuse their victims through coercive control use every tool in their box to do so. They exert control over finances and they use children as a weapon. It is heartbreaking that innocent children are used in that way. My colleague Paul Frew has tabled an amendment to address children's being used as an aggravator.

Abusers also use animals as weapons. Our amendments recognise that behaviour as a form of domestic abuse and allow the courts to protect animals through existing civil protection orders. There is an established correlation between those who commit animal abuse and those who are domestic abusers. That correlation is regularly cited in the risk assessments that are used by support organisations such as Women's Aid. When victims are terrified that their abuser will threaten to harm their animal if they do not comply, it is devastating and frustrating for them to feel that they do not have the power to take any further action in that context.

The amendments will have a significant and practical effect by formally recognising how animals are used for coercive control and by strengthening the legal protections. Our amendments explicitly define the harm of, threats to and interference with animals as a form of domestic abuse. They extend non-molestation and occupation orders for courts to prohibit abusers from harming, threatening or interfering with animals, and to consider the welfare of the animals. If the amendments are acted on, I believe that they will make a significant difference. They will prevent animal harm and empower abuse victims to stand up with the force of the law against the perpetrator.

As I said previously, animal abuse is a proven indicator of future, more violent crimes. Prosecuting those offences will catch perpetrators earlier in the triangle of violence. I consider the amendments to be similar in type to the relatively new offence of non-fatal strangulation, which was previously introduced. That offence has seen significant application and significant work from the police. I believe that catching that early indicator before it results in death has saved many lives. I believe that amendment Nos 88 and 89 will be of a similar theme, and I hope that Members will be able to support them.

Mr Gaston: I will focus my brief remarks on the group 3 amendments solely on Ms Egan's amendment No 73, which inserts a new clause to abolish blasphemy. That amendment is the latest attempt to further diminish our Christian country and the conservative DNA that runs through it. The Justice Minister's introductory comments on the group 3 amendments reinforced my suspicions when she referred to "freedom from religion". That is exactly what the Minister and the Alliance Party want to use the Bill for.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mrs Long: The Member may not be familiar with article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHR) or article 9 of the ECHR, which make it quite clear that freedom of religion and belief and freedom of conscience are intertwined. Therefore, your freedom of belief and my freedom of belief, in terms of our religious faith, come with the attachment of other people's right to live a life free from religious interference. That is what freedom is about. I am surprised that someone who lectures others on freedom of speech does not know that.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for her intervention. I am not here to lecture anybody. I am here to point out and stand up for the constituency that

me to come to the Chamber to speak on their behalf. The Minister's contribution shows that she is more interested in freedom from religion. So I do not agree — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, we cannot hear you, which is a very unusual thing in the Chamber.

Mr Gaston: Is that better now?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That is much better, Mr Gaston. Thank you very much indeed. Continue, please.

Mr Gaston: There we go, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just set out very clearly my position, but it seems that the Member behind me is intent on misrepresenting it, despite the fact that I could not have been clearer about what I said. Is it in order for a Member to go out of their way to deliberately misrepresent another Member's contribution in the way that he just has?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You have made your point, Minister. You have made that position clear. Back to you, Mr Gaston, please.

Mr Gaston: I will move on. Amendment No 73 acknowledges that blasphemy is a common-law offence, rather than one that is codified in any piece of legislation. The last successful prosecution for the offence was back in 1977 and was a private prosecution rather than one brought by the state. The case went the whole way and was mentioned in the House of Lords. It is worth noting what Lord Scarman had to say in his judgement on the matter. He said:

He accepted that, historically, the Christian religion is part of the law. He also argued that blasphemy law still served a purpose in maintaining public order and protecting religious believers from grave offence. He went on —.

Ms Egan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Ms Egan: Does the Member accept that the offence of blasphemy has since been repealed in England? Can he point me to any negative consequences of that for freedom of religion and belief in England or any other part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Egan, you are perfectly entitled to make an intervention, but please make it through the Chair rather than turning towards the Member. There are two reasons: one is that it is common courtesy, and the other is that turning away sometimes makes your words difficult for the microphone to pick up.

Mr Gaston: Indeed, the offence has been repealed in other parts of the United Kingdom and down South, but that does not make it right. The fact that it has happened there does not mean that we should not ask questions or make our points on the issue. My freedom of expression allows me to put my point on the record. The Alliance Party may not like it, but it is my right to do so whether or not its Members like it and want to chunter and speak under their breath. They can do that all that they want.

Lord Scarman further explained that the law did not ban criticism of Christianity but, rather, prevented:

I put it on record here today that, while I am a champion of free speech, I am opposed to contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible. I believe that legislators are subject to a higher power and therefore that, when we mess with offences such as this, which have been recognised by the state for centuries, we should do so with extreme caution.

We open every sitting with prayers. Why do we do that? We do so because it is part of our Christian, conservative DNA. I strongly believe that, as a Christian country, we should continue to do that. That is why I am speaking out against the blasphemy amendment that has come before us this afternoon.

I also note that those in the Alliance Party who are pushing the amendment are ironic in their fashion. I say that because, in my short time in the House, I have found that it is that party that likes to shut down free speech when it disagrees with it. That is the standard that the Alliance Party has set. If any Member in the House questions its liberal gospel on abortion, on immigration or on transgenderism —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — the Alliance Party —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. Mr Gaston, if you would keep your remarks to the amendment on the blasphemy offences and not move on to wider areas, that would be very much appreciated. Back to you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was using that as an example. When anybody speaks out against its view on those issues, it is the Alliance Party that chunters and sneers at and degrades anybody who tries to speak out on issues that it supports. The Alliance Party wants to abolish all regard for Christianity in law but champions a law that has seen an elderly pastor in his 70s prosecuted for preaching on John chapter 3 verse 16.

Forgive me for being cynical by judging the actions and decisions taken in the House on what has gone before. Amendment No 73 is just the Alliance Party's latest attempt to remove Christian safeguards that exist in law. The amendment is not about protections for freedom of speech; it is an illustration of the hypocrisy of the captured ideology of the left. For that reason, and because I do not believe that we should remove laws that recognise the Christian heritage of our beloved nation, I oppose the amendment.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way. I was fascinated by the completely bizarre situation that he just outlined. How does he think that the current laws benefit people? Did he not hear what my party leader said about how freedom of religion and freedom from religion go hand in hand? Is that a concept that he understands, or does he reject it completely? Can he not see that you are able to have religious freedom and express yourself only because everyone else has the right not to, and does he not want to live in a society in which everyone is free to have their own beliefs and everyone's beliefs are respected? I would really like to know how the current blasphemy laws benefit people. Does he think that dead laws should just be kept? What would happen if we were to change our regime completely and we had different politicians here? Does that not give him any concern?

Mr Gaston: I put it back to the Member: what harm is the law doing? You referred to it as a dead law. As I set out, the most recent time when there was an issue —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — was in 1977.

I am happy to give way to the Justice Minister.

Mrs Long: I have set out a few times the harm that it is doing, but I am happy to do so again: it makes hypocrites of those of us who argue for freedom for Christians in other countries and ask them to repeal their blasphemy laws. The blasphemy laws of other countries are often draconian and enforced with a heavy hand, and can lead to Christians being held on a register, imprisoned and, in some countries, stoned. In some instances, the Churches have to list their premises on a government list and be inspected, and people cannot carry a Bible home for private reading, or cannot pray together in their own home. Does the Member accept that that is a harm that is worth standing up against? The repeal of blasphemy laws in these islands gives us the power to call for the repeal of blasphemy laws elsewhere because they negatively affect the very people about whom he claims to be concerned: Christians.

Mr Gaston: I did not know that amendment No 73 would give us the power to influence any other country in the world. The Justice Minister may think that there are those around the world waiting to see what Stormont does —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — but that is for the fairies. However —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — if that is the pedestal on which the —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — Justice Minister has set herself —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — I do not want to be the one to burst her balloon.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: The part-time Minister in Justice —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): It is very clear, Justice Minister, that the Member does not want to take an intervention from you on this occasion.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to refer to me as a "part-time" Justice Minister? I have been in the Chamber more often than the Member has over the past number of weeks, and I have never resiled from doing my job fulsomely. Will the Member retract that scurrilous accusation?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Justice Minister. Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Maybe "part-time Minister" was not the right phrase; "caretaker Minister" is OK because she wants to turn a blind eye to anything that happens in the PSNI, but that is up to the Minister and her directorate.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Speaker has already ruled on and written to Members about the interaction between my Department, including me, and the PSNI, and for what I am accountable and for what I am not accountable. The Member to my rear is now challenging the authority of the Speaker in the House. I ask you to consider his remarks and ask the Speaker to rule on them. It is clear that I do not give an account of the PSNI, and nor do I interfere in its operational decision-making.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Justice Minister. Your remarks have been noted. Mr Gaston, you are aware of the Speaker's rulings in that regard. Bring yourself back to the subject, please.

Mr Gaston: I will get back to the debate and the reasons that I have set out as to why I do not support amendment No 78 in the name of Connie Egan. I care deeply about the Christian heritage of Northern Ireland, so I oppose that amendment and look forward to joining the DUP in the "No" Lobby.

Regarding the rest of the amendments that are on the Marshalled List, I put on record my thanks to the Chair of the Justice Committee for the work that he has done. He has put a lot of work into it, not just in preparing to speak in the Chamber. In Committee, the work that he has done in the background is clear. I will support the amendments that my colleague in North Antrim has tabled. To finish, I say the same to the Justice Minister: I will support the rest of the amendments that have been tabled in this group.

Mr Carroll: I am happy to speak to the amendments in group 3. I think that there has been a bit of a misunderstanding in this debate about left ideology. I will maybe come to that if it is in line with the amendments. I would never dare stray from the topic of conversation.

Amendment Nos 45 to 48 deal with organised crime offences. We all know the damage that organised crime does in communities like mine. In west Belfast, paramilitary gangs run loan-sharking, drugs and extortion, and they use fear to control people. That harm has to be confronted head-on. There is no equivocation or disagreement around that, but I am not convinced that the amendments are the way to do that, as I will outline.

I am happy to be corrected through interventions, but my reading of the amendments is that they are drawn very widely. Under the participation offence, a person can be found guilty even though they did not know any of the people in the group, even though the crime that they were supposedly part of was never actually carried out and even where the things that they did were not, in themselves, criminal. The directing offence carries a sentence of up to 14 years. That is guilt by association. They are broad offences that hand sweeping discretion to the Police Service, which already over-polices the very communities that it claims to protect, and the Public Prosecution Service. Therefore, I have some concerns about that, to put it mildly. The problem of criminal gangs is real. There is no equivocation on that, but I think that the tool to deal with it is the wrong one. I do not think that you break the grip of paramilitaries by creating offences so loose that they could catch people on the margins while the powerful leaders stay out of reach.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

Mrs Long: Two offences are being created because I share, to a degree, the Member's concern. One is participating in organised crime, and, crucially, the other is directing it. I think that many people are concerned that those who participate, particularly at the margins, may be the ones who normally face court and sanction while those who sit at the centre, directing it and benefiting most from it, often have the ability to evade that because they are not hands-on in committing the crime. This legislation gives us the opportunity to catch those individuals for directing the organised crime, but, crucially, it does not cut across the defence of coercion. Therefore, if somebody has been genuinely forced to undertake criminal activity, either as a result of intimidation or threat, or some other form of coercion, that is a legitimate defence. Indeed, if they have been exploited criminally, that may provide them with the opportunity to be referred to the national referral mechanism if it cuts across modern slavery. I want to reassure the Member that there is nothing in this that is about trying to put more vulnerable people in front of the courts. It is about trying to get to the kingpins of criminal organisations.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for that clarification. Broadly, I welcome that approach. Again, I am happy to give way on this. In my earlier comments, I stated that, from reading the amendments, somebody could be found guilty even if they did not know any of the people in the group and even if a crime that they were supposedly part of was never actually carried out. That is my reading of it, and that is concerning. I have no issue with what the Minister said in her intervention, but there are still wider points. I appreciate that I may be in a minority of one, but that is still the position that I hold.

Amendment No 70 repeals the vagrancy laws. Obviously, I support that. That is very much welcome. The Vagrancy Act is a 200-year-old law, the entire purpose of which was to criminalise poverty and the poor, to kick them, to lock them up and to make it a crime to be homeless and to be forced to beg. It is Dickensian through and through. It has no place in modern society, and it should have been done away with a long time ago. Nobody should be arrested for being poor. Obviously, I will support that amendment, and I commend the Minister for tabling it.

Having said that, I have concerns with amendment No 71. I am happy to give way on this. Like most people, my party and I welcome the repeal of a law that criminalises the poor. However, I am not sure about waving through a new one, by way of amendment No 71, which, again, is extraordinarily broad. We would be making it an offence to be "in any enclosed area" with:

any offence at all —

That criminalises intention and presence. In my view, it is ripe for misuse, not only against homeless people who are sheltering wherever they can — who would blame them for doing so? — but, potentially, protestors who are using their right to freedom of speech. Hopefully, we will soon repeal a law that criminalises the vulnerable, so let us not pass another that will do the exact same thing.

Amendment No 72 relates to facilitating begging for gain. I have major issues with that amendment. It would do a similar thing to amendment No 71, which is to criminalise through the back door. While it is likely that the House will repeal the vagrancy law, amendment No 71 would bring a similar activity into criminal law. Poverty is —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I was waiting to see whether he had finished his commentary on those two amendments, and maybe he had a wee bit more to add, but I thank him for taking an intervention at this stage.

When he talks about "misuse" of the power, is he talking about the PSNI, or is he talking about shopkeepers who might ring the PSNI? There could well be issues relating to the behaviour around begging or rough sleeping. Whilst it is not those people's fault or problem, it can have a negative impact on another person's life, such as someone who lives or works in a particular property. The police have outlined that they think that there will be a gap if we repeal the vagrancy law on its own. Is the Member going against the police and the information that they have given us? What does he mean by "misuse" of that law?

Mr Carroll: I was initially talking about misuse by the police, but it could be misused by a shop owner, a business or somebody who does not like somebody else and wants to complain about them. It is broad, and there are no safeguards in that regard. I have concerns about that.

Poverty is not a crime, and those who are destitute are not criminals. The Member spoke earlier about coercion, trafficking and people being exploited. There are already laws to deal with those crimes, where there is real concern that they are happening. I will not support re-criminalising begging in a different way, through a different amendment, although I realise that I may be in a minority of one.

I support amendment No 73, which relates to the abolition of offences of blasphemy. It was straightforward, to me, on my initial reading. The offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are a relic of an old, outdated age. They have no place in a modern society that values free expression. I would challenge the assertions that were made by the Member for North Belfast and, I think, the Member for North Antrim that Christians are under threat in the UK and Ireland. That is simply not true. There is freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom to practise religion. As an atheist, I defend the right of any organisation, including Christian organisations, to retain that freedom. A lot of myths are being put out, and we need to challenge them in respect of this amendment and more generally. I also challenge the assertion, which was made in different ways, that Muslims have it easy or great in Ireland, whether in the North of Ireland or elsewhere. Muslims face racism, harassment and all sorts of other repressive actions. I found the Member for North Belfast's comments about a cabal of "left-wing comedians" strange. I would like him to show me examples. We have to challenge the idea that Christianity is under the cosh or under challenge. That is not true. For that reason, and many more, I will support amendment No 73. I thank the Member for tabling it.

I have some issues with amendment No 78, similar to those outlined by the Member for South Belfast. We are, obviously, unequivocally opposed to exploitation, coercion and trafficking. Where those things exist, the full force of the law should follow. People should be prosecuted and stand trial for that. That is not solely what the amendment does, however. It also criminalises the advertising of sexual services "regardless", to use its own word, of whether anyone makes a penny from it. That is sweeping and general, and I share the Member for South Belfast's concerns about targeting and criminalising people who engage in sex work. Regardless of whether people morally like it or not, it happens, it is a reality, and adults make a choice to do it and take part in it. I am concerned that those things are being lumped together.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for West Belfast: we have not yet found common ground on general policy areas, but he is gracious with me by at least taking my questions. Will he accept that in the case of amendment No 78, and it does not matter who you speak to, the majority of experts agree that most women who work in that field are either coerced and exploited or trafficked? I accept that a minority of women who work in that field choose to do so, and I think that the experts concur with that, but in all the evidence that I have read the majority are either coerced and exploited or trafficked to facilitate demand in our country. Will the Member accept that, and, if so, what specific issue does he have with amendment No 78?

Mr Carroll: The Member made the point for me. He said a "minority", but I do not know what evidence he is citing. I do not believe that there is even a report on that, but if there is he can send it on to me and I will happily read it. He mentioned that people engage in the sex industry without being coerced, so he is making the point for me. He is lumping coercion and exploitation alongside sex work, which, as the Member for South Belfast said, is the oldest trade, so there is a problem there. I dispute the figures that the Member referred to in passing, but I have a real problem with the lumping of sex work that adults engage with in a consensual way with exploitation and coercion, the tackling of which nobody is against. Everybody is opposed to exploitation and coercion, but I am concerned about their being lumping together with consensual sex work.

Mr Martin: Yet again, I thank the Member for West Belfast for giving way. We are talking about figures, and Ruth Breslin, from SERP has done a lot of work in that area as has the University of Sheffield. I will happily try to dig some of those reports out and share them with the Member. We are talking about figures such as 90% of women in that area being coerced or exploited, and there is certainly evidence of that. We heard verbal evidence from survivors about coercion and the taking of young women, getting them hooked on drugs in Northern Ireland and introducing them into that form of exploitation. We also heard of women being brought in from Brazil, Romania, Portugal and countries in Southeast Asia simply to service the demand that is inherent in our country. If the Bill addresses the vast majority of the work, will that not be beneficial as it will save the vast majority of women from that type of abuse?

Mr Carroll: I do not know if those figures are correct. I am not saying that the Member is willfully misleading the House, but then you are going to criminalise the 10% of people who engage in sexual services through choice, and that is what the amendment will do because it lumps the two together. I have absolutely no problem with prosecuting those who exploit and coerce people into providing sexual services but this is a catch-all amendment that includes sexual services where people engage consensually as adults alongside exploitation and people who are being trafficked.

I will give way to the Member to my right.

Mr Burrows: I really struggle with the characterisation that is being presented. Having seen for myself cases of vulnerable women having sex with sometimes 10 or 12 men a day, that is not a career choice that is made in a free way. Those women are victims of vile men who exploit them and use them as objects, and we need to see them as victims and people who are being exploited. The men who do that are the problem, but it is a complete mischaracterisation to portray it as a glamorous, romanticised profession. It is abuse of women in our country, and it is wrong.

Mr Carroll: The Member is not listening, or maybe he just does not understand. There is no disagreement about or issue with criminalising the exploitation and coercion of people. There should be prosecutions for that, but, seemingly, the Member supports the lumping together of all sexual services. Are you really putting people who use OnlyFans alongside people who are being sexually exploited and trafficked? It is bizarre stuff and bad legislation.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way. When I was phrasing this, I was careful to avoid getting into this narrative. It is tempting to do that, and it may do well in clicks on social media, but that is not the point. The point is that, when we bring legislation to the House — I wonder if the Member agrees with me — we need to scrutinise it and to look at it from all angles. I have said multiple times that this is a worthy amendment that is trying to tackle the infrastructure that facilitates trafficking. However, there are a small group of women —. You can speculate and make your own moral judgements on it; go ahead. But I have met these women and worked with some of them, and they have told me that it is their choice. My concern is about how those women were going to be protected under this law. That is our job: to look, without judgement, at how the legislation impacts on all of them. Does the Member agree that, when we discuss this, we must not sensationalise it, get into whether one agrees with prostitution — it is a fact that it happens; we need to make sure that we have all the support in place — or spin it so that it becomes something salacious? It is purely about how the legislation impacts on groups of people, especially a tiny group of people.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for her very helpful intervention. I am often told by Members — not her — to read the amendment or to read the legislation. I invite the Members to my right to do the same, because they are completely lumping two different issues side by side, which is problematic. I concur with the Member's points. In a general sense —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. This is a really important debate, and we should all treat it with respect, because we are dealing with real people and their real-life dilemmas. Even someone who offers sexual services by choice is in extreme danger and at risk. You are saying that we are in danger of penalising or hurting someone who offers sexual services, but all that we are talking about here is the advertising of sexual services. We are not criminalising anyone who does sexual services; that has been set since Lord Morrow's day and is something that we welcomed and pushed hard for. There will always be a consequence to any law — there will always be cause and effect — and we have to be mindful of that, but the balance here is that we prevent someone from advertising sexual services in the hope that we protect all those people, who are mostly women, who are involved in selling sexual services, and also we try to stop people being held in captivity who are vulnerable, who are coerced, who are slaves and who have to sell their bodies because a pimp told them to. That is what we are trying to deal with in this amendment.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for his intervention. Wittingly or unwittingly, he is lumping two issues together. I have no problem with article 64B sub-paragraph (1)(b), about a person who "coerces" —. I am not opposed to it being an offence to force people to display sexual images. That is a horrible practice, and I am fine with supporting ending it. The problem is with article 64B(a):

That is incredibly broad and does not protect women who do that. I do not claim to speak for all, or any, women, but women do say that they engage in sex work by their own choice, regardless of whether I or anybody else likes it, morally speaking or otherwise. My problem is the lumping together of those two things.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will give way briefly, because I have been generous with my time.

Mr Frew: You have. I thank the Member for that. There are people who do this through choice who have a small, select group of clients, and then there are people who, if they were to advertise digitally, would go worldwide. It is putting women, even those who do it by choice, in immense danger, because they do not know who will walk through their door. It is therefore responsible to prevent the advertising of sexual services.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for that. However, I repeat: it is too broad and criminalises people even when they are engaged in services through choice. They are adults who know exactly what they are doing. They are intelligent beings. I therefore have a concern about lumping everything into that amendment.

I will make some progress, Members will be glad to know. I am concerned about sweeping up and criminalising the tools that sex workers rely on to stay safe, to screen clients, to work indoors and to stay off the streets. We were warned a decade ago that criminalising the trade would drive it underground and endanger the most vulnerable, and that was correct. We will therefore not support amendment No 78, because we do not support the criminalisation of sex work and do not want to put people at risk of further exploitation.

I have no problem supporting amendment Nos 88 and 89 on domestic abuse and harm to animals. In fact, I will be glad to support them. It was quite concerning and upsetting to listen to the Members opposite talk about such abuse. The fact that an abuser may use threats and violence against a victim's pet as a deliberate weapon and as a way to trap them in an abusive home, because they will not leave the animal behind to get hurt, is quite upsetting. As someone who has a dog, I concur that pets are absolutely part of the family. Recognising that in our domestic abuse protections, as amendment Nos 88 and 89 do, is a welcome and evidence-based step that will help to keep victims and their family safe.

In conclusion, we will support the amendments that protect people by repealing the criminalisation of poverty and ending the relic of blasphemy and those that strengthen the protections for people facing domestic abuse. We will do our best to oppose other amendments that simply widen the net of criminal law and hand more power to the state without any evidence or rationale, but I appreciate that it may just be me who does so.

Mr Beattie: I will make remarks on a number of the amendments in group 3. First, it has been a really good and informative debate. I have picked up quite a bit from it. It has, of course, had passion, and it has, without a doubt, been robust and challenging. However, everything that has been said has been fair and been delivered in the manner of somebody trying to get their point across.

I thank the Justice Minister for introducing the legislation to the House and explaining it as best she can. I particularly thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, who was on his feet for an hour and 10 minutes. I thought that he was very good, not because of the length of time that he spent on his feet. I thought that he was very informative, so well done to him

Mrs Long: Do not encourage him. [Laughter.]

Mr Martin: We have another two days.

Mr Frew: Another two days.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Order.

Mr Beattie: He told me that he would be finished in just 10 minutes.

These are nuanced amendments and clauses. They start off dealing with organised crime, and they make it better understood. I will therefore support amendment Nos 45 to 48, which deal with organised crime.

I will now go down a little bit of a rabbit hole with the Minister and get on my soapbox, because I have been screaming about this issue for a long time. I have long called for paramilitary groups to be classed under the organised crime category and for the language that is used about paramilitary groups to identify the fact that they are organised crime groups. Although paramilitaries are not mentioned in the amendment, the definition of an organised crime gang is very clear. It is a group of three or more people working or acting together for the purpose of:

It does not have to be just financial "gain or benefit". That is the definition of what paramilitaries do in our society now. If we take that to its fullest, there are intended and unintended consequences. We now find that all loyalist paramilitary organisations and all republican paramilitary organisations fall under the same clear category as organised crime gangs.

It levels up something that has annoyed people on this side of the House for some time, which is why does the PSNI deal with loyalist paramilitaries while covert agencies, such as MI5, deal with republican paramilitaries? We do not need that any more.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Yes.

Mrs Long: To clarify, PSNI deals with both. The Assembly deals only with paramilitaries because terrorism is a reserved matter. There is a terrorism investigation unit in the PSNI that deals with both groups. You are right: it will capture all the organisations that engage in organised crime, and it is entirely appropriate that we have that.

Mr Beattie: My point is that some of those organisations are no longer just about terrorism. It is not just about national security; it is now about the organised crime in our society. It is clear that the PSNI, MI5, the National Crime Agency (NCA) and other covert agencies should be employed to monitor and investigate all the paramilitary groups as organised crime gangs. This is where my soapbox comes out: if all paramilitaries are to be classed as organised crime gangs, why do we have a separated prison regime? If we say that they are just criminals, why are we giving them a separate prison regime? My question is not for the Minister; it is for the Secretary of State to look at the matter. However, it is something we need to revisit, and I have been screaming about it since 2016.

There are organised crime gangs that stretch across our constituencies. There is an organised crime gang called "The Firm" in South Down, and it is an insidious group of criminals that gets into all walks of life, and it does not choose which flag it flies because it is everywhere. They are criminals in exactly the same way as paramilitaries, and they should be treated in the same way with no special treatment. The amendments on organised crime groups allow society to move on and treat criminals as criminals and change the language around crime that has plagued us for years. It is something I have argued for over a number of years. In simple terms: a drug-dealing organisation is a drug-dealing organisation, not a paramilitary drug-dealing organisation, and should be treated as such. I welcome the amendments on organised crime. I have sat on the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) working group for some time, and we have looked at those things. Changing the language is incredibly important.

We had a lot of discussion of amendment No 70, and, in truth and regardless of what they say here, everybody thought that the Vagrancy Act 1824 should be repealed. However, we always have to be mindful of unintended consequences and do not strip away a law that gives the police the power to support those who need it. Someone could be breaking the law on paper, and the police can turn up — not to criminalise them but to help them. If we take that away, the police do not have to turn up, because rough sleeping will no longer be a crime. I will be clear that I support getting rid of the vagrancy legislation, but amendment No 71 is important and supports the gap in the legislation that was outlined by the Chair of the Justice Committee. It is good to see the Justice Minister and the Chair of the Committee coming to common ground in the Chamber and saying that they will work together to tie the matter down before Further Consideration Stage, and that is something positive to take out of the debate.

I support amendment No 72, as it gives the police the power to tackle organised begging, which, in many cases, is the direct outworking of human trafficking, exploitation and coercion. However, the focus must be on those who direct the begging, not the vulnerable people sitting on the street. In many ways, they are the victims and the people whom we have to look after. It is about the ones who are directing it. Remember: they are not on their own; they direct it with a network of people. What does that make them? An organised crime group.

Let us be really clear when we talk about getting rid of that. We are trying to get rid of organised begging, particularly when organised crime gangs exploit vulnerable people.

As an advocate of free speech, I support amendment No 73 on the repeal of blasphemy laws, which was tabled by Connie Egan. People have spoken passionately about it, and I have no issue with people doing that. However, I have worked and lived in countries where blasphemy laws are used to the detriment of people and to the detriment of Christians, and it is hard to stand in those countries and say that what they are doing is wrong when we have the same thing in our country. I have seen it. People do not realise how bad it is in other countries. I know that we are not in other countries and that we will not influence other countries, but there is something about saying, "I am standing up for what I believe". We do not need to have this, and we can still protect people's rights. By the way, I am always accused of being an atheist, but I am certainly not. I am not with Mr Carroll yet; I am just in his corner, in this little community that we have found here. [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Beattie, get back to the subject. Stop the love-in in the corner.

Mr Beattie: Amendment No 78 deals with the advertising of sexual services, and, again, many of those involved in the sex trade are victims of trafficking. I have seen trafficking at both ends, by the way. I have seen the genesis of that trafficking and where it ends up. Many victims of trafficking are victims of organised crime, coercion and violence. They are victims of poverty as well — it is important to say that — and of poverty exploitation. In some cases, they are victims of debt. Again, I am heartened that the Minister will work with the Chair of the Justice Committee to make sure that we tie that down and ensure that the language is right. That is what we should do in places like this.

I am slightly mindful of something that the Chair of the Justice Committee said. He said that we are no longer looking at stickers in phone boxes, people on street corners and kerb crawling because it has all gone online. My concern is displacement: you take it offline, and, all of a sudden, it turns back to the street corners and the telephone boxes. The victims — the people who are being exploited — could be in more danger. We need to make sure that the resources are there to ensure that, if we have displacement, we have ways of dealing with it.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I am really enjoying his speech, but, on a technicality, I will do that activity not as Chair of the Justice Committee but as DUP spokesperson. Although I happen to be the Chair, all the work that I will do over the summer with the Minister and the Department will be done as a DUP spokesperson, lest anybody on the Committee think that I am going off on a solo run.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member. Do you know what? After an hour and 10 minutes, it all got mixed up in my head. [Laughter.]

However, your point is well made, and you are absolutely right that you did an awful lot of it as a DUP Member.

I support amendment Nos 88 and 89, which deal with domestic abuse and threats to animals in the form of companion or domestic pets. Again, we need to tie down the language to make sure that we have that absolutely correct before it goes forward. I will also support all the other amendments in the group.

As I said at the start, it has been a good debate that has covered an awful lot of very nuanced stuff. People are passionate about it, but that has not detracted one bit from the debate. It is right that people should be passionate, and we will all have our say when we come to the vote. At the end of the day, we need to make sure that, as regards this group of clauses and amendments, we get the wording absolutely right so that the legislation supports the people in our society.

Mrs Long: First of all, I want to say that, by and large, it has been a constructive debate. It is clear that people can be passionate and, in the main, exchange their views with courtesy.

It is important that we continue to do that, because these are important matters. Whilst we may go about our business slightly differently, there are more points in this that we agree on than we disagree on. It is important to recognise that.

I want to look at each of the sets of amendments very briefly. Many Members raised the issue of organised crime and how we want to tackle that. It is important that we deal not only with participation activities, which are the most common activities that people are caught for, where they are engaged, often, in rather low-level offending, but more serious offending that they are doing on behalf of an organisation. They may be doing it willingly or because there is personal benefit, or they may be doing it to pay off a debt to somebody who is coercing them. Those tend to be the people who end up in front of the court while the kingpin sits at home with his feet up and simply benefits from the profits of the crime. It is those kingpins who I want to see brought before the courts and made amenable to the law.

If we are going to stand up against organised crime in our society, it is important that we do so in a coherent way. The Member who just spoke mentioned the organised crime task force and the work that it does. I see real opportunities for the Bill to allow the organised crime task force to do more of the good work that it has been doing. Co-location with the paramilitary crime task force means that there is the opportunity for a two-way conversation to happen within the structures of the PSNI. All of that will allow us to tackle organised crime more effectively.

I want to provide reassurance to the public and send a strong message that law enforcement has all the tools that it needs to ensure that no one in our society who engages in organised crime will be untouchable. As I said earlier, I reassure Members that this is not about trying to criminalise people who are vulnerable, coerced, threatened or intimidated into engaging in crime. We know that young people are often coerced into committing crime in order, for example, to pay off a drug debt or to right some other perceived wrong of the organised crime gang. They will be looked at, and the defence of coercion will still be there for them. We know, for example, that there are vulnerable adults whose houses are cuckooed. Again, if they are allowing their property to be used in that way, coercion is a reasonable defence.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of how this will be implemented. A number of Members wanted to be assured that it would be implemented sensitively and proportionately. There will be robust training and guidance for operational partners to ensure that it is done sensitively, with a view to those concerns, and to ensure that we bring before the law those who are guilty and not those who are simply vulnerable or amenable.

On vagrancy, I very much welcome the broadly supportive approach that we have had around the House. The proposals in the public consultation were also broadly supported. I believe that there are sufficient defences available to deal with associated behaviours that cross the criminal threshold. Those who beg or are rough sleepers should not be dealt with differently from anyone else. If they commit a crime, intimidate, threaten, alarm or cause harm to an individual, they should be dealt with in exactly the same way as somebody who is housed or someone who is earning. I consider that to be a comprehensive cross-departmental and multi-agency response by statutory and voluntary and community sector partners that addresses the underlying issues around rough sleeping and begging is a far more effective and proportionate response than the criminalisation of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

During the debate, the question of whether repeal would limit the ability of the police to engage with those who are in need of support or guidance was raised. I want to make it clear that that is not the case. On the repeal of rough sleeping and begging offences, community police will continue to engage with vulnerable people and, in line with the PSNI's Right Care, Right Person approach, ensure that the appropriate agencies become involved. That is a vital bridge between those who are most in need and the services that there are for them. I do not want to remove that bridge where the PSNI works in partnership with Health and Social Care partners. That aims to ensure that individuals are directed to the most appropriate agency for support and that we do not create the stigma of criminality for someone who happens to be rough sleeping or homeless.

The strong links between support organisations and the police across Northern Ireland will still be there, but the activity will change somewhat, in that, potentially, people will not be threatened with arrest if they do not move on. However, if they are being a nuisance, causing threat or intimidation or alarm, they can be charged with offences, just as anyone else would. It is important to recognise that, from our perspective, we want to deal with that in a proportionate manner. The PSNI has supported that.

I also believe that, whilst I personally do not identify, and the Department has not identified, any gaps that will be created, there is an opportunity to assuage some of the concerns that some Members have that that would leave some kind of gap in the law. From our perspective, the DUP amendments, on this occasion, do no harm to our overall intent, which is to decriminalise poverty, and do no damage to that objective but perhaps provide the additional reassurance that is required so that people are happy to move in that direction.

The PSNI has indicated that it will produce operational and policy guidance to officers when that law is repealed to guide them on how they should engage with people when they receive concerns around begging or rough sleeping and on how officers will be able to direct those people to the appropriate services. That is an important reassurance for those of us who want to ensure that there is no shame or stigma to being homeless. The only shame that should be felt about the homelessness crisis in our city is by those of us who are in a home — by those of us who are in this House, directing government, in that we have not been able to solve that crisis. There is no shame on those who find themselves in such desperate circumstances, and holding them accountable under the law is not the way to deal with that.

On the blasphemy offences, I am afraid that there was much heat and very little light coming from some quarters. However, I say this as a Christian who has availed herself of the right of free speech; who avails herself of the right to practise my faith; avails herself of the right to read my Bible, both alone and with others; and avails herself of the right to pray, both alone and with others. For me, the issue is not about attacks on Christianity, as some would wish to make it. There are some who cannot see any issue through any other lens than one that shows it as an attack. There are some who cannot see the wider implications of what we are trying to achieve and the importance of it. The truth is that the laws are rarely, if ever, used, so removing them from the statute book or retaining them on the statute book is not an attack on Christianity or a protection for Christianity: it is, simply, lazy politics.

Ms Egan: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will, yes.

Ms Egan: Does the Minister agree that it is quite strange that those who will be voting against my amendment and who want to keep those laws on our statute book have not come forward with any ways in which they think that those laws should be used? They are not used, so what is the point in having them? Those Members have not come forward with any proposals on how the laws should be used. Maybe you can confirm: have they asked you to produce any sentencing guidelines? What should the punishment for blasphemy be if it is on our statute book?

Mrs Long: That is exactly it: they are not used. They are unlikely to be used, and it is to our detriment that they remain on our statute book.

I know that there were some rather disparaging comments made about me in that regard, and about my thinking that I was more important than I really was. Just to be absolutely clear, as the Parliamentary Champion for Open Doors, I sat in an office in the House of Commons opposite a number of ambassadors from countries that have blasphemy laws in place. They came to meet me when I raised those issues in Parliament, as I did consistently and persistently during my time there. They came to meet me and asked, "How can you chastise us? You have blasphemy laws in Northern Ireland. Are you going to repeal them?", and I said, "Yes, I will, at the first opportunity that I have".

Unlike others, I am not a hypocrite. I do not seek the protection of my faith, nor, frankly, do I need my faith protected. If you believe in an all-powerful God, I can assure you that He does not need the Assembly's backing to do His will. However, if you believe in blasphemy laws, you are, by default, saying that you are content for people in other places, who have different faiths from us, to also have blasphemy laws that act against those who share our faith, or who persecute those who have no faith. I think that that is morally repugnant. If I am going to say that about laws in other places, as I did to the ambassador from Algeria at the time, I am going to say it about our laws. I am going to be consistent.

I believe in a free and open society. In a democracy, people should have the right to have and express a faith, to change their religion if they so choose and to live a life free of interference from religion if they choose, because it is not only about belief and faith but about conscience. People have the right to believe whatever they wish. That is an unfettered and undisputed right. That is clear from reading article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of belief, thought, conscience and religion. Equally, article 9 of the ECHR guarantees those same rights. The right to belief is unfettered. The right to express belief and how to do so is in no way unfettered, because that right intersects with the rights of others, as do all our rights. What you think in your head is entirely for you, but how you express it and how you act is a matter that impinges on other people's rights, and it is right that there should be boundaries to protect people.

To be clear, the nonsense that I have heard this evening that Alliance is anti-faith or that we are seeking to do this because we do not believe in the Christian faith or because we disparage it is an absolute and outright lie. It is a lie, and I find it profoundly offensive that anyone would make that case in the Chamber against me. I believe that people have a right to freedom of expression and religion, and that means not just the religion or set of beliefs that I choose but all the other beliefs that people may choose, because that is real freedom. That should be recognised. Some people will stand up and say, "I might not agree with what you say, but I would die to defend your right to say it", but they do not say that if it is blasphemous or if they do not like it in a religious setting or because someone is making a joke about their faith. How does one put those limits around what people can and cannot say? I am offended by much of what I hear, not least in the Chamber, but I do not have a right not to be offended. I do not have a right to stop other people from having their views, nor would I wish to have one.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will not at the moment, because I am about to say something else.

On the idea of simply saying that this is a remote chance, let us not forget how Ireland ended up repealing its blasphemy laws. They were also thought to be inoperable and unworkable, until Stephen Fry was on 'The Meaning of Life' programme on RTÉ. To summarise, when he was asked what he would say to God if he were to meet him, he said that he thought that it was a very vindictive and nasty God who would create people and allow them to suffer. I believe that he is entitled to have and express that opinion. I fundamentally disagree with him, but the idea that he would be taken to court for his beliefs was such an outrage in the Republic that the offence was removed from the statute book, because people recognised that to prosecute somebody for expressing a view that they were asked to express was a ridiculous situation to be in. There is no protection in saying that people will not be prevented from speaking their mind because that law is never used. It could be used, and, for that reason, I believe that it should be repealed.

I also ask Members to consider the reasons that they gave as to why one religion in this country should have more protection than all the others. If you are going to apply that position consistently, it means that you should not have freedoms as a Christian in an Islamic country or as a Sikh in a Hindu country. We could go on and on.

Yet, we argue, day in, day out, and I know that I certainly do, and I have funded charitable organisations and travelled with organisations that seek to spread the gospel, and I expect a warm welcome, I expect to be respected, and I expect not to be attacked for doing so. I expect that freedom and courtesy to be extended to me. One of the key things in the Bible for those who profess their Christianity is that you should treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. As a Christian abroad, I would wish to be treated with respect for my freedoms and have the ability to voice and display my faith as I choose. Therefore, fundamentally, I believe that I should do the same when people are here in my country. I want to ensure that we are respectful of those who come here with different faiths and none.

Let us bear in mind that, while this may not be such a serious matter here, people around the globe are losing their lives because of blasphemy laws. The only way that we will change that is through constructive dialogue and consistent leadership. Countries that have blasphemy laws and do not properly protect article 18 of the UNHR or article 9 of the ECHR have the worst human rights records by far. It is not only rights of religion that are compressed and destroyed but other rights and freedoms. In a democratic society, no one has the right to control your religious beliefs.

Finally, I turn to Ruby's law. Paul Frew has said that he is happy to work with us to avoid any unintended consequences. To be clear, we are all agreed that, for example, in the case of non-molestation orders and other civil orders, pets and so on are already named. We are clear that the construction of our domestic abuse offences is, first, wide enough to capture it and, secondly, that it is also reflected in the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum. We gave some examples of pets being used in domestic abuse situations. The unintended consequence of part of the amendment would be to put, if you like, animal abuse above other forms of domestic violence and abuse. I do not believe that that was the Member's intention, nor do I believe that that would be wise. However, I welcome the fact that the Member has been constructive.

If we are to pass law here that is not to be constantly contentious, I urge other Members to engage with me and the Department. We will do our best to find ways to address the issues that are of concern to you. This may be the only chance that the Department of Justice will get to progress a miscellaneous provisions-type Bill, so I want to be able to accommodate as many of Members' concerns that I can in it. My officials and I are happy to meet the Member on the basis that we can bring changes at Further Consideration Stage. On that basis, I am content to give my support. I thank all Members who engaged with good faith and in good grace this evening. In the main, these debates have been an exemplar of how we should do business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister. I ask Members to bear with us as we go through this next stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have been advised that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group clauses 22 and 23 for the Question on stand part.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): While Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) have been suspended, allowing us to sit indefinitely, the Business Committee has agreed that the sitting should end at the most appropriate point around 8.00 pm and that the Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill should continue tomorrow. This would seem to be a convenient moment at which to adjourn. The debate will continue tomorrow, and we shall start with a debate on the amendments in group 4.