Official Report: Tuesday 09 June 2026

Mr Speaker: Jon Burrows has been given leave to make a statement on the serious stabbing in north Belfast that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. I recognise the concern of Members and the community about the attack and the desire of Members to express their concerns. I caution Members, however, that arrests have been made and the matter is now sub judice. What Members say in the Chamber carries weight and will still be part of the official record if and when the matter goes to trial. Therefore, while I am content for Members to discuss the matter, I warn them that they should not, in the heat of the moment, say something that may prejudice any trial.

Mr Burrows: Like everyone across Northern Ireland, I was deeply shocked by the barbaric scenes that I witnessed on social media of a man clearly being horrifically injured on our streets. My first thoughts are with the victim — I pray for him and for his recovery — and with the medics who are treating him today. I thank the members of the public who evidently intervened to save that man's life and the Police Service for its swift actions.

It is clear that, at such times, there can be tensions in our community. It is right that political leadership says that we need to give the police the time and space to do their investigation, to secure evidence and to go through due process. I have already spoken today to the police at a senior level. As I mentioned in an interview on 'The Nolan Show' earlier, when there is such tension — there is some national practice for this — the police should be proactive in giving out as much information as they can to the community that is factual, accurate and objective. Otherwise, in a vacuum, we get disinformation. The community should know what the facts are that can be released.

It is imperative on all of us in political leadership to show calm leadership to our communities. I say to anybody across Northern Ireland today that the way to respond to such issues is never to break the law and never to incite hatred. It is to show solidarity with our community, to send our best wishes to the victim, to ensure that we all do what we can to promote good relations in our country and to make sure that we have the protections and laws that are required to keep our people safe.

I am glad that the Matter of the Day was accepted and that we have an opportunity to show political leadership, to appeal for calm in our communities, to wish the victim the very best recovery possible and to thank our police service, medics and members of the public who intervened. I reassure people that the police service has promised me that it will mobilise resources this evening to keep the community safe, keep tensions down and open up lines of communication with the local community. Now is the time to think about the victim and wish the police all the best. I encourage the police to be proactive, to give as much information as they can to the public and not to allow a vacuum that can be filled with disinformation.

Mr Kingston: When I saw the video this morning, I, like all Members, was deeply shocked by the barbarity of the attack that took place on Kinnaird Avenue in north Belfast last night. A man was pinned to the ground and seemingly in a helpless state, yet the attack by another man, using a knife and slashing at his face and repeatedly at his throat, continued — a man in a helpless state being mutilated. In the video, residents can be heard shouting, appealing for the attack to end. I commend the residents who intervened to help to bring the attack to an end and the police officers who arrived on the scene to end the attack.

I spoke to the PSNI commander for north Belfast this morning. The police have put out a statement to confirm that a 40-year-old man is in hospital. Our thoughts are with him. We hope and pray that he will survive and recover from those horrific injuries. We think of his family at this time. A 30-year-old man from Somalia has been arrested. The police tell us that they are not seeking anyone else in connection with the crime at this stage. They told me that both the victim and the perpetrator live in the area.

We need to keep hearing information from the police. It is important that factual information is put into the public domain, whatever the circumstances were and whether or not it suits everyone's agenda. It is important that, in this era of social media, false information is not circulated online. I appeal to the police to make that information available. They also need to increase their presence on our streets at this time of anxiety and fear that such a thing could happen.

There may well be questions for other statutory services about the circumstances in which the attacker was living here and whether he was meant to be receiving supervision. We need to hear honesty — not half-truths but the full information.

There is great anxiety. I visited Kinnaird Avenue this morning. Obviously, it is covered with media. I also visited the lower Old Park community, on the other side of Girdwood. I am told that there was no trouble there last night. It was not an interface-related issue. What are the circumstances? We need to know the facts. This is a time for assurance. We are concerned that people may try to cause other people who are not connected with the incident to suffer consequences, and we make the appeal that that should not happen. The response should be fact-based, with statutory and community agencies working together.

Mr Gaston: In the Chamber yesterday, I was ridiculed by the self-righteous MLAs to my left, including the Justice Minister, for daring to highlight issues around immigration and the impact that it has on working-class communities. The word that Sinn Féin Member for North Belfast Carál Ní Chuilín used was "obnoxious". I wonder whether anyone in the Chamber today would dare to find fault with anyone who used stronger terms to describe the events that took place last night. That murderous attack was not just savage in itself but was indicative of the alien culture that has been imported through unchecked immigration.

Last night's events cannot be divorced from the immigration debate, and anyone who attempts to do so is gaslighting our communities.

Watching the video of the attempted beheading, I was struck by two things: one was the fact that the attacker was a foreign national, and the other was the fact that it had a striking similarity to the Islamic attacks that we have witnessed across the world. My party has already called for the nationality, immigration status and religion of the suspect to be published by the police. That needs to happen, and it needs to happen now. Shortly after the Liverpool incident, the police and the BBC positively rushed to say that the attacker was a white male. Let us see whether they are as quick to comment on last night's attack and to say that the attacker was not white.

The issues that the case raises need no longer be off limits to the Chamber and the Committees of the House. The most basic duty of government is the defence of its citizens. People need to know that they are safe to walk the streets without fear or danger of someone attacking them or, indeed, trying to cut off their head. Those who attempt to shut down discussion of those issues are not liberal. They are not standing up for the marginalised and oppressed in our communities to defend the policies that led to last night's attack. Advocating them is, positively, a danger to our communities in Northern Ireland.

Some people dare to say that raising such issues is not Christian. We are warned in Deuteronomy of:

That is what we saw last night. It is time to close our borders —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — it is time to stop the boats —

Mr Speaker: I call Michelle O'Neill.

Mr Gaston: — and it is time that the House faced up to the realities. It is time that the British Government took a stand —

Mr Speaker: I call Michelle O'Neill.

Mr Gaston: — and did the right thing for the people of the United Kingdom.

Mrs O'Neill: Like others, I unequivocally condemn the violent and brutal attack that took place in north Belfast yesterday evening. It was an appalling and horrifying attack that has deeply shocked our entire community. There is no place for violence of any kind in our communities, and my thoughts are very much with the victim and his family at this time. The perpetrator of that heinous crime must face the full weight of the law. We are all united in saying that those involved in violent criminality have no place in this society. Anyone who engages in violent criminality has no place in our community.

I commend the courage of all those who intervened to remove the attacker in advance of the police arriving. I commend the first responders, the PSNI and the Ambulance Service who responded to that serious incident. I urge anyone with any information to come forward to the PSNI immediately so that a full investigation can be carried out and the perpetrator can be brought to justice.

Miss McAllister: Last night's horrific attack in north Belfast should be condemned by all, and I join everyone in the Chamber in condemning the brutal attack that everyone could see in the hours that followed.

One thing that made it even more barbaric is the fact that it was caught on camera. I urge people not to watch the video and to allow the police to do their job. It is not something that anyone, especially young children, needs to see, and I am aware that the video has been circulating already.

What is most important this morning is that everyone's thoughts are with the victim. We understand that he is in a critical condition, and we hope that he will fully recover. We thank the brave people who attempted to step in and stop the brutal attack.

Such violence has no place on our streets. It has no place in public, and it has no place even behind closed doors. It is not what we know of north Belfast. It is not what we need to see. It has left the community feeling anxious about where we go from here, but today is not a day for politics; it is a day for being calm, for allowing the police to do their job and carry out their investigation and for the public to come forward with any information that they may have.

I urge everyone, not just those in the Chamber but the wider public, to ensure that tensions are not raised, that there is no violence on our streets and that we ensure that our community in north Belfast and Northern Ireland remains calm in the days ahead. It is important that we do that to allow the police to do their job and to ensure that that man is brought to justice and feels the full weight of the law.

Mr O'Toole: The events that took place in North Belfast last night — the act that was carried out — were horrific and depraved. I have, unfortunately, seen the video that was widely shared, as, I am sure, many in the Chamber have. I hope that no one else sees the video, and I urge people not to watch it or share it, not just because it is depraved and shocking but because we do not want people to have to see that, and we do not want to compromise the dignity of the victim any further while, as we hope, they recover in hospital. My thoughts and those of my party and virtually everyone in the Chamber are with the victim who is recovering in hospital, with those who witnessed the horrific attack and with the brave soul who intervened to rescue the man and potentially prevent loss of life.

The attack was so unspeakably depraved that it has shocked people. It is important to acknowledge that shock is a natural and understandable reaction to such images, but it is important for those of us in political leadership, which is an immense privilege for those of us in the Chamber who lead, to choose our words carefully and to reflect on our role as leaders and the impact that our words can have.

The person responsible for this should feel the full weight of the law. There should be nothing that prevents them from feeling the consequences and prevents public safety from being prioritised. I thank the police and the other emergency services for their response last night. It is important that the police are allowed to do their job without intervention or unhelpful public commentary. It is also important, at a time of real anxiety about the safety of all communities in Northern Ireland, that we choose our words carefully. We cannot ignore the fact that there are dark actors who will want and are already trying to take advantage of the situation to create more tension and more fear.

Let me say that no ethnicity or race has a monopoly on violence. The scenes that we witnessed last night were utterly horrific, but we need to bring calm to our community and act and speak responsibly. Those of us in positions of leadership should reflect on our role. Today, we should seek to bring unity and a calm response to the public who are watching.

Mr Carroll: I say unequivocally that the violent attack on a person in north Belfast last night was totally unacceptable, wrong and horrific. My thoughts are with the victim of the attack and their family. This was a dangerous and horrific attack that nobody should ever have to experience or witness. Like others, I commend those who intervened in a quick-moving but dangerous situation to help the person who was attacked. I commend them for their quick actions and intervention. There is no doubt that the event will have a lasting and traumatic impact on the family of the person who was attacked and the wider community in that part of north Belfast, and they need to be given the space to process what has happened, but also services should be put in place to support the people who experienced, saw and heard what happened last night.

I also appeal for calm in the wake of the attack. Undoubtedly, anybody who has seen the footage or heard about it will be deeply troubled — that is a natural response to such a horrific event — but organised violence and escalating the situation is not the answer.

That will serve only to bring more harm, more fear and more hurt to our communities.

Attempting to use this tragic event to whip up racism should be called out and absolutely condemned. I condemn that this morning, and I call on other people, who are troubled and horrified, to also condemn that and not to go down that very dangerous path. We have seen where that leads to. We saw the events of last summer in Ballymena, when refugee and migrant families were burnt out of their homes in retaliation attacks that solved nothing and only instilled fear. People are now stockpiling food because they are fearful of another hot summer, and I am fearful of that as well. This should be a warning sign for us to act. No community should be singled out or blamed for the heinous attacks of an individual, regardless of their skin colour or the country or city that they were born in.

The local community in north Belfast is, no doubt, deeply troubled this morning. People are reeling, upset and anxious, and they do not deserve or need more violence or intimidation on our streets. They need our support and understanding and to have the ability to begin to try to process this horrific event.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Last night, people in north Belfast witnessed horrific scenes that have absolutely sickened and appalled people across Northern Ireland. It was a shocking and barbaric act of violence that has left a victim fighting the consequences of a truly savage attack. Today, our thoughts, prayers and deepest concerns are with that victim and his loved ones, but they are also with the local community and those who witnessed what happened at first hand. I have no doubt that they are deeply shaken today. I pay tribute to the bravery of those who stepped forward to intervene in particularly difficult and dangerous circumstances.

What happened last night was not simply a criminal act; it was an assault on the very values that bind us together as a society. Every person has the right to walk their streets, live in their community and feel safe in their own neighbourhood. This type of brutality has no place in Northern Ireland.

This morning, I spoke with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister. I made it clear that, at a time when people are understandably anxious and concerned and are understandably demanding answers, we must have very clear communication with the public. There must be the giving of as much information as possible. Clear, timely and transparent communication is essential to establish the facts but also to address any misinformation or rumour. We also need to be very clear that, no matter how potentially uncomfortable it is for some, the full truth must be made public.

I have also been in contact with the Prime Minister, because the PSNI has confirmed that the 30-year-old male who has been arrested is believed to be of Somalian heritage. I engaged with the Prime Minister this morning to ensure full commitment to full and urgent cooperation with the Home Office to see the status of that individual and, indeed, what information it may hold about him.

My message is simple: there can be no excuses and no tolerance of such violence. I know that emotions are running high, and I know that there is anger and concern across the community, but I urge everyone to remain calm, to allow the police to carry out their investigation and for people to establish the full facts.

Mr Tennyson: I condemn the vile and horrific incident that took place on the streets of north Belfast last night — streets where people should feel safe and families should feel secure. That incident has undoubtedly and understandably caused huge distress and anxiety amongst our community.

My immediate thoughts are with the victim and his family, and I sincerely hope that he will make a swift and full recovery. My thoughts are also with the brave and courageous members of the public who stepped forward to intervene and with the first responders to the incident. It is vital that all of us in the Chamber support the PSNI in its investigation and give it the time and space that it needs to ensure that due process can take its course and the facts can be established and set out in full.

This is a time for responsible leadership. It is essential that all of us in the Chamber stand united to ensure that violence and hate will not be allowed to divide our communities. I appeal for calm, for responsible leadership and for the police to be given the space that they need to ensure that justice can take its course. I sincerely hope that the individual who is responsible will face the full weight of the law.

Ms Brownlee: Like many in the Chamber and across Northern Ireland, I woke up this morning to the horrific scenes in north Belfast. Our first thoughts must always be with the victim, his family and those who witnessed such a barbaric act of violence. I pay tribute to the members of the public who risked their own safety to intervene and provide assistance and the PSNI, which was there within minutes.

Many sections of the media have branded this a stabbing, but the video footage that is circulating online shows that it was far more than that. It was a sustained, vicious and murderous attack. It was not simply an assault but a calculated attempt to inflict the most severe and life-changing injuries imaginable on another innocent human being. The brutality that was displayed has shocked people not just across Northern Ireland but across the world. It has left many people asking how such violence could be carried out so openly, with such apparent disregard for human life, in our country.

The PSNI must be frank and forthcoming with information as its investigation progresses. Residents will, understandably, be concerned. They deserve to know the facts. Rumour and speculation will thrive in the absence of information, particularly when that horrific footage is being circulated online. It has recently been reported that a 30-year-old Somalian man is responsible. He must be brought before the courts as quickly as possible and feel the full weight of the law, ensuring that there is justice for the victim.

This is now on our doorstep. Something like that can never happen again. Above all, the Assembly must send a clear message that there can be no excuses, no qualifications and no mitigation for violence of that nature. The victim deserves justice. The family deserve answers. The people of north Belfast and Northern Ireland deserve to know that the individual responsible will be held fully accountable for his actions.

Mr Buckley: This morning, we woke to one of the most graphic and sickening videos imaginable. The violence on display in north Belfast was utterly reprehensible: a man pinned helplessly to the ground while being brutally stabbed and slashed in live time on a street in Belfast. The sheer savagery of the attack should never be witnessed on the streets of any civilised society, least of all north Belfast. The scenes of an attempted beheading will stay with the people of Northern Ireland and far beyond for a long time.

Our thoughts are primarily with the victim. I am angry, but I am appealing for calm. Violence is never the answer.

In the immediate aftermath, there can be no room for hesitation from the PSNI or, indeed, the Home Office. They must place all the facts surrounding that disgusting attack in the public domain. Bring the facts into the open and bring them out now. We know that the attacker is of Somalian descent. I want to know his immigration status. I want to know who came with him into this great country. I want to know whether he has a criminal history; no ifs or buts.

For years, ordinary people have been raising concerns about safety on our streets and the direction in their communities that is changing beyond belief. Too often, those concerns have been dismissed. Those people have been patronised or simply ignored by sections of the political leadership.

That cannot continue. When we have constituents coming to us time and time again and telling us that they feel unsafe on our streets, we have a duty to act.

No one who warned about open borders and illegal immigration desired to see our streets unsafe. Let us call a spade a spade. Those in political office, the open-border brigade and the media, who have targeted us and labelled us as far right and racist, have nowhere to hide. Our communities are our strength, and, for years, they have been systematically undermined. The national Government are a joke. They are rudderless, with no ability to deport illegal criminals and no ability to stop small boats. Their responsibility, first and foremost, is to protect the public.

To the people of north Belfast and those in communities across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom who are anxious about the pace and nature of change in the place that they call "home", I say this: I hear you. The DUP hears you. We hear your concerns. We are listening, and it is high time that every other political party did just that.

Ms Nicholl: I had not intended to speak, but, following the interventions from Jonathan Buckley and Timothy Gaston, I feel compelled to.

What happened last night should never have happened. It was the most brutal, depraved and horrendous attack. I watched the video as well. I wish that I had not, and I wish that no one sees it. It was awful. It was horrific. We have to condemn the attack, and we have to ensure that everyone feels safe. Yes, people will be frightened right now, and I acknowledge that. Right now, our job as leaders is to come together and ensure that there is calm. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate with such dignity and responsibility, because we are dealing with a highly emotive topic.

I have different views from other people on so many of these issues because I have worked with people who have come here from other countries. I know that small children are not a threat. They have come here just to make a new life. I do not want to get into that discussion now. On another day, let us have a grown-up, respectful conversation about how we manage migration, how we ensure that support is in place, how we ensure that there is integration and how we manage our services. Today, however, is about something awful that happened in our society: something that should never have happened. Everyone is reeling from it. What happened was wrong. We need to come together. This is a test of our leadership, and it is about how we go forward. This is not just about Northern Ireland, because we are being watched from everywhere else. It is on the news in Britain. Actors across the world are watching how we react.

This is a place that overcame the insurmountable. This is a place that is a testament to politicians coming together to work through difficult issues to ensure peace and safety for all. That is the situation that we are in right now. There has been a sea change. We are in a volatile place right now, and I am worried for everyone in our communities. I want us to have a society in which everyone is safe and protected.

The narrative today is about calm. It is about making sure that the police have the space, access and information that they need and that communities — people in their homes right now — are not frightened that there will be retaliation. Communities have seen what is happening in their streets and are worried that it may happen to one of them. I acknowledge that there are real concerns and that they are not far-right. What happened last night was terrifying. We can show leadership now by coming together and seeing how we can get through this peacefully. We must not agitate. We must not stir things up. It is dangerous to talk about anger. It is dangerous to —. [Inaudible.]

Ms Nicholl: That is not for today, Timothy. Let us have that conversation on another day. Today is about coming together — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Order. [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.

Ms Nicholl: The issue —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Nicholl: Let us have that discussion later, not now. Right now —.

Mr Gaston: When is later?

Ms Nicholl: Today. Later today, but not right now. Today is about —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Gaston: You do not want it [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Nicholl: Mr Speaker —.

Mr Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Ms Nicholl: We need to be better than this. People are watching us to see that we are. I thank everyone else who has shown leadership, and I hope that others are able to provide it in the days ahead.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. That concludes the Matter of the Day.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, I submitted a question for urgent oral answer about the attack in north Belfast to ensure that the Minister of Justice comes to the Chamber to answer questions from MLAs. The incident is not currently being treated as a terrorist offence. That means that the attack sits within the Justice Minister's responsibilities. We now know that the man is Somalian. I want to know —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Gaston: — his immigration status.

Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Will the Justice Minister come —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Gaston: — before the House today —

Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Gaston. I am in control of the House, not you.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: We have just had a Matter of the Day on that issue; we will not have a question for urgent oral answer as well. That is not our practice. The Justice Minister will answer topical questions today. There will be an opportunity to question the Justice Minister at that point. We will move on.

Mr K Buchanan: Last Friday, I had the privilege of walking alongside the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, his dedicated team and veterans as they completed a six-day journey: the Somme 110 walk. The final day coincided with the 82nd anniversary of D-Day. It was not simply a walk; it was about remembrance, and it was community spirit at its very best. Over six days, the team travelled 60 miles across all six counties of Northern Ireland, marking 110 years since the Battle of the Somme, one of the most defining and devastating chapters in our shared history. At every step, there was reflection. At every mile, there was purpose. At every stop, there was a sense of unity that reminds us why remembrance still matters so deeply today.

The Battle of the Somme is not just a story from the past but one that lives on in families, regiments and the hearts of those who continue to serve. It stands as a stark reminder of the sacrifice, suffering and bravery of those who fell and fought. Those men faced unimaginable conditions so that others might know freedom. Their legacy endures not only on the now silent battlefields but in the hearts of the communities that they left behind. The courage that was shown in 1916 echoes in the courage of our veterans today, men and women who have worn the uniform with honour, dignity and quiet strength.

The walk was also about giving back. The team raised vital funds for two outstanding charities: the Somme Association, which works tirelessly to preserve the memory of those who served and fell, and Air Ambulance Northern Ireland, which does life-saving work that touches families in every corner of our Province. The efforts of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, his dedicated team and all those who took part remind us that remembering is not something that we just talk or think about. We show it by helping others, giving our time and supporting our community. We will remember them.

Mr Delargy: The 'good jobs' Bill is about building a society that values people, families and workers. The Bill would establish new rights for parents whose babies require neonatal care and new protections for carers, who provide support to loved ones every day. Each of us, whether through our families, friends, communities or our role as elected representatives, is familiar with the heartbreaking stories of people across the North who have had to give up work because of caring responsibilities, whether those are for their child, spouse, elderly parent or another relative who is unwell.

Our role as legislators is to identify and support those who are most marginalised by current legislation. Providing a pathway to change that reality for those whose dedication, care, love and compassion is punished by a lack of job security, fair pay, carers' leave entitlements and fair conditions is a critical component of that.

By blocking the 'good jobs' Bill, the DUP has shown its hand and proven what many of us already know: it is anti-worker, anti-equality and anti-rights. It is for the DUP to look workers in the eye and explain its reasoning, but no amount of spin will change the facts. The reality is that the DUP is blocking the 'good jobs' Bill.

What does blocking the 'good jobs' Bill mean? It means no entitlement to leave for carers, no entitlement to paid neonatal leave for families and no guaranteed tips for workers. My appeal is simple: stop playing politics. Stop playing games with the lives of workers and support the introduction of the 'good jobs' Bill in the Assembly. Support proper scrutiny. Support democracy.

Mr Honeyford: At the weekend, I attended the Hillsborough Boys Junior Football Club's end of season awards event. The club has more than 500 playing members on boys, girls and adults teams as well as Football for All and walking football teams. The club is at the heart of the community in Lagan Valley, and the awards were a fantastic evening to celebrate players, volunteers and coaches. I want to say "Well done" to everyone concerned.

One message came through really clearly, however, which was that as the club continues to grow, it needs more facilities and pitches. Club members urged us to get on with developing the Maze/Long Kesh site. That brought me back to a statement that we heard in the Chamber last week. I want to be really clear about this. The future of Northern Ireland will not be built by bulldozers, but through jobs, investment, sport and the arts and by creating opportunities for future generations. Ultimately, however, it will be built by sharing this place. No young person at Hillsborough Boys Junior Football Club will get on to a new pitch because we demolish a building. They will get on to a pitch because we choose to build a better future for all of us.

The Maze/Long Kesh site offers the opportunity to provide sports pitches for local clubs and facilities for Commonwealth Games teams that we do not have in Northern Ireland. There is a chance to create jobs, attract investment and unlock economic potential. It is a strategically important site on the Dublin to Belfast economic corridor. Yes, the site also offers the opportunity to tell our story honestly and factually, while welcoming visitors from across the world who want to understand it. The site will never be about glorifying the past, creating shrines or anything else. It must be about building a better, shared future for all of us, and that the hope for tomorrow is better than it is today.

What struck me most last week was how quickly a bulldozer can generate headlines. Yet, positive conversations about sharing this place and about jobs and opportunities for tourism and sport never attract the same amount of attention. Have we become so comfortable that we would rather argue about yesterday and score cheap political points than plan and work for a better tomorrow? The choice is really simple. We can either focus on the dead end of tearing things down, constantly encouraging division, or we can focus on building things up and sharing this place, creating better opportunities and a better future for everyone who lives here. For clubs such as Hillsborough Boys Junior Football Club and others in Lagan Valley and for the future of this region, we need hope, not the scaremongering that we constantly hear in here.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the opportunity to mark Carers Week and to recognise the extraordinary contribution that carers make to our society every single day. Across Northern Ireland, hundreds of thousands of people provide unpaid care for a family member, a friend, a neighbour or a loved one. They support elderly parents, they care for children with complex needs and they provide comfort and dignity to those who are facing illness or disability. Their contribution is invaluable, and I thank them.

Without carers, our health and social care system would struggle to cope; indeed, I would argue that it would collapse. Carers save our public services billions of pounds every single year, but their value cannot be measured in financial terms alone. They provide compassion, stability and support for those who need it the most; yet, too often, carers feel overlooked. Many carers face financial pressures, poor mental health and isolation. Many are trying to balance caring responsibilities with work, often with very little support and very few protections. Too many people are forced to reduce their hours, turn down opportunities or leave employment altogether because caring for a loved one becomes impossible to balance with work.

We know that that burden falls disproportionately on women. Around 60% of unpaid carers are women, and many find their careers and earning potential limited because they have stepped in to provide care where support has been lacking. That is why employment rights matter. For carers, access to leave and flexibility can mean the difference between staying in work and leaving it altogether. That is why the 'good jobs' Bill is so important. The Bill has the potential to deliver important new rights for working carers, including for carers' leave. It is an opportunity to build a labour market that recognises the realities of our modern life and supports those who care for others in their community.

Unfortunately, that legislation continues to be held up in the Executive. Every month of delay is another month in which carers are left waiting for protections that could make a real difference to their lives. For many carers, the debate is not about legislation but about whether they can accompany a loved one to a hospital appointment, respond to a crisis or continue caring without sacrificing their job.

The SDLP has consistently supported the introduction of paid carers' leave, because the right of people —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: — who cannot afford to use it —.

Mr Gildernew: Mar a dúirt cúpla Comhalta, seo í Seachtain na gCúramóirí, seachtain a dtugtar deis dúinn lena linn ár machnamh a dhéanamh ar obair na gcúramóirí, bíodh sin mar ghairm bheatha nó mar dhualgas morálta do bhall teaghlaigh, do chara nó do chomharsa. De réir dhaonáireamh 2021, tugann níos mó ná 220,000 duine cúram neamhíoctha sa Tuaisceart. Tá sin thart ar dhuine as gach ochtar. Is daoine iad sin a thugann cúram cionn is go bhfuil feidhm leis, nó cionn is go bhfuil duine ag brath air. Ba chóir tacú lena bhfiúntas; ba chóir aitheantas agus urraim a thabhairt dó.

An té atá ag obair mar chúramóir neamhíoctha, féadann sin bheith ina bhac mór air fostaíocht a fháil. Más fíor do Carers NI, d’fhág duine as gach triúr a chuid oibre le cúram a thabhairt do dhuine eile. Ó tharla sin amhlaidh, tá súil agam go gcuirfear Bille na ‘bpost maith’ faoi bhráid an Tí le go rithfear agus go gcuirfear chun feidhme é, nó cuirfidh a chuid forálacha saoire neamhíoctha ar fáil do chúramóirí, déanfaidh siad an rochtain ar obair sholúbtha níos fusa ag cúramóirí, agus athróidh siad an chothromaíocht oibre agus saoil le cuidiú le teaghlaigh atá ag obair. Molaim Caoimhe Archibald, Aire Geilleagair, agus an Roinn Geilleagair as an Bhille sin a fhorbairt agus as éisteacht leis na cúramóirí agus a ngrúpaí abhcóideachta lena chinntiú go gcuirfear forálacha sa Bhille le tacú leo. Mar sin de, agus Seachtain seo na gCúramóirí ann, gabhaim buíochas leis na cúramóirí, agus deirim le Comhaltaí gur chóir dúinn a gceart a thabhairt do chúramóirí agus Bille na ‘bpost maith’ a rith.

Mr Givan: I speak in advance of the continuation of the Justice Bill's Consideration Stage today, which, potentially, will deal with the important group of amendments associated with the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The debate will be important, and I urge Members —.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member take his seat for a moment? If this is a matter that is to be debated later on, then that is for the debate later on. If the Member wishes to talk about it in a more generic way, he can, albeit we may not get to the minimum age of criminal responsibility today, given the speed at which the Justice Bill is moving.

Mr Givan: Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, my statement relates to the petition of concern, which, if valid, will be debated along with the group 6 amendments but has to be signed before we get to that debate. That is the context in which I make this contribution. When we get to the debate, it will be past the post.

I appeal to Members not to consider the implications just from a justice point of view. Jim Gamble has spoken at length on this. He has intervened in a powerful way, particularly for those who are reluctant to sign a petition of concern, about the priority that should be afforded in considering those dilemmas that people feel.

He has stated:

I say this to the Members who are still deliberating: set aside any other issues that may cloud the discussions and look at the changes that the amendment would make. There is a very limited opportunity to make an intervention.

If the Members who have brought forward the amendment decide to propose it — I appeal to them not to do so — there is only one way in which it can be prevented from becoming law. Why is that important? It is important not just from a justice point of view. The Youth Justice Agency engages with our schools. Where will the support be if the situation changes? I am deeply concerned that the withdrawal of that deterrent will undermine the practice of discipline in our schools. Such a proposal should be taken forward in a youth justice Bill, after proper consultation and consideration, with other Departments feeding into the process, rather than via an amendment tagged on to the Justice Bill that will have profound implications for many other aspects of our society.

I appeal to those who have it within their gift to ensure that proper scrutiny takes place to step up and support those who have already signed the petition of concern. If an issue were to materialise in the future, it will be too late for them to wish that they had done something to prevent it. I would rather be on the side of proper scrutiny and consideration than of rushed legislation. I appeal to those Members who can to join us.

Ms Sheerin: I will speak briefly about an issue that I have raised in the House on numerous occasions: domiciliary care provision and home care, specifically in my constituency of Mid Ulster. It is appropriate that I speak about it during Carers' Week, when we acknowledge the role of unpaid carers in our society and the struggle that they face.

I was recently contacted by a constituent who was forced to make what was almost a public appeal for support after spending the best part of six months trying to get the most basic of care provision for her elderly mother. The appeal that she made would bring tears to a stone. I am frequently contacted by daughters, daughters-in-law, nieces and neighbours, and, to a lesser extent, by sons and male members of the family, about the care that elderly parents, aunts, uncles and neighbours need. The level of desperation that those people have to go to in order to get the most basic care provision for elderly people who have worked all their lives, contributed to the system and are entitled to dignity at home in their last years on this earth is absolutely heartbreaking and ridiculous.

I have appealed to the Minister of Health on a number of occasions to properly provide for our elderly communities and properly resource our domiciliary carers. One of the biggest problems that we face in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust area is that we cannot facilitate packages of care because the carers who carry out that vocational and heartbreaking work are not paid sufficiently to do so. Therefore, it is left to unpaid carers — family members — to pick up the burden. It is emotionally and mentally draining, and it leads to unacceptable tension in families. The level of responsibility that is placed on families to carry out what should be provided for by the state is unacceptable.

In the particular case that I talked about, the lady made multiple phone calls to a social work team to deal with her mother's care and found that there was no social worker assigned to her mum; she was dealing with multiple duty social workers, none of whom was aware of her mother's complex needs. She had to re-brief each of them every time that she phoned. She felt as though she was begging for very basic provision for her mum, which still has not been delivered. I have made the case directly to the Minister on a number of occasions. We have also brought motions on the issue to the House, but, as we face into another summer where such care is not provided properly, we need to see urgent action from the Minister.

Mr Dunne: I congratulate Mr Michael Dunlop MBE on yet more incredible success. Last week, he won three races at the Isle of Man TT, bringing his record to an incredible 36 TT victories in a glittering career. The Isle of Man TT is revered as one of the toughest tests for competitor and machine in global motor sport, and it has been fantastic to see the Dunlop legacy continue to go from strength to strength over many years. His success, last week, with two super-sport class victories and a sport-bike victory brings him up to 10 more TT successes than his late great uncle Joey Dunlop, who is still revered across the world. Joey is truly iconic.

Michael Dunlop is one of Northern Ireland's greatest ever sports stars. We have a rich and proud history of road racing and motor sport in our country; it is something that we can be proud of. It was an excellent week for local competitors in the Isle of Man. I congratulate all competitors and those who took part in the event. Congratulations also to Paul Jordan, who secured a podium finish in one of the races.

Road racing is dangerous, and there are risks involved. Our thoughts are with the families of the two riders who were tragically killed — one at the Isle of Man TT and one at the North West 200. I offer my best wishes to local rider Gary McCoy and to Maria Costello MBE, who is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland as a competitor, who were both injured at the TT.

We look forward to the rest of the road racing season and to the 2027 Ulster Grand Prix — plans are afoot to restore that great event. I wish the organisers well. I know that a lot of work has been done so far and that there is much more to do, but people across the UK and beyond are looking forward to the Ulster Grand Prix, hopefully, getting under way once again.

Congratulations to Michael Dunlop and all the competitors at the Isle of Man TT.

Mr O'Toole: I rise to raise an issue that is very important in South Belfast, particularly in the inner part of South Belfast. It relates to the residents' parking scheme, which is open to applications at the minute. It opened at the end of April and will run until the end of July.

A successful pilot scheme has been operating for a number of years at Rugby Road. That has been extended by the Minister. We welcomed the principle of extending it to other parts of Northern Ireland, when Minister Kimmins announced it, but, at that time, I made the point that the levels of response required — an overall majority of occupants in a street in support of an application for a residents' parking zone — would specifically discriminate against many of the parts of my constituency that are most in need of residents' parking schemes and which, frankly, are crying out for them. I am thinking in particular of areas such as Stranmillis, the Holylands and parts of the lower Lisburn Road where people want residents' parking schemes.

I say this for the benefit of the people who walk around them: those are the areas for which the schemes are most essential, because they experience high numbers of people who want to use the local amenities, but, because of their proximity to the city centre, people often park there for commuting purposes. The residents have to deal with that extra burden and challenge, because, in those places, off-street parking is rare — in fact, it is almost non-existent in some areas. The people who live in those areas really want a residents' parking scheme.

The Rugby Road scheme has happened in the same part of the inner south of the city, but the system is almost designed to discriminate against residents. A high number of people who live there have short-term lets, or they are students or people who are relatively transitory. That means that it is almost impossible, if not impossible, to get a majority of people in some of those streets in that part of Belfast to respond. That is creating a challenge. It would be a huge regret for the Executive and the Minister if the areas, streets and neighbourhoods in inner Belfast that are most crying out for residents' parking schemes were unable to benefit from the scheme, in part because of the way in which the scheme is set up. Surely, that is not a desirable situation. I ask the Minister to look at the issue again. The applications for the scheme run until the end of July.

There is active representation from groups such as the Stranmillis Neighbourhood Association. It works hard and is doing huge amounts of work to bring its community together through various community projects, including planting in alleyways.

They want the absolute best for their community, and a residents' parking scheme would be a huge bonus for them, albeit they want a scheme that works for them and for the inner south Belfast communities. I hope that the Minister will look again at the way in which the scheme operates.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the news that Goldsprings of Comber LOL 1037 has won its battle to get the BBC to apologise. I will remind the House of what happened. Last July, the BBC reported that the cancellation of a children's GAA summer camp in Comber happened after, or because of, a statement issued by the lodge. That was a lie that the BBC went on to broadcast repeatedly across television, online platforms and its radio stations for two full days. It is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, it is a straightforward question of fact. Last week, after almost 11 months, the BBC's executive complaints unit finally upheld the complaint.

The BBC now admits that its reporting was based on a "mistaken premise". The BBC now admits that the issue represented was not just a failure of clarity but of accuracy. A formal apology has been issued for its "lapse in editorial standards". Those are the BBC's words, yet what concerns me most today is not the original mistake but the fact that it took the BBC almost 11 months to reach a conclusion on a complaint that turned on a simple matter of the timeline.

For month after month, the complainants were effectively told that the matter had been dealt with. I raised that in the House in February. The BBC then claimed that the complaint had already been dealt with, yet its highest complaints body has now concluded that the clarification itself was inadequate because it failed properly to acknowledge that the original reporting was, indeed, wrong.

The BBC frequently lectures others about accountability, transparency and honesty, yet when it came to the Orange Order, all those principles went out the window. Why? Many, including me, believe that it was because the BBC in Belfast could not contain itself when it thought that it had a chance to kick an Orange lodge. Standards, checking and editorial guidelines all went out the window because it was the Orange Order. The truth has finally caught up with the BBC. I will continue to call out its double standards and hold it to account. What it reported was a lie, but, thankfully, we now have that acknowledgement.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the fourth group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 68, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 69, 76, 77, 127 and 131. Any links between amendments in the group will be indicated at the appropriate point.

I call the Minister of Justice to move amendment No 68 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your indulgence, I will put on record my condemnation of the extraordinary incident in north Belfast last night. Most of us were shocked and horrified at the violence that we witnessed, which was recorded and broadcast online. I extend my best wishes to the victim and his family. I know that his injuries are serious, and I hope that he makes a full recovery. I also put on record the gratitude of all of us for the brave people who intervened to try to stop the attack, and to the first responders who rescued the individual and took him to the care of the hospital. I think that all of us will also wish to call for calm. We understand that people are frightened and angry, but, this morning, it is important to recognise that everyone in the community is reeling from what they have seen and to ensure that the police have the opportunity to investigate thoroughly.

I beg move amendment No 68:

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

Mrs Long: Amendment No 68, together with amendment Nos 69 and 127, will create police barred and advisory lists for Northern Ireland. The creation of such lists will align Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom to create a cohesive and effective safeguard against those who have proven themselves to be unsuitable for a career in policing from gaining further employment in a policing profession.

Barred and advisory lists for policing in England and Wales have been in operation since 2017, and Scotland is setting up similar lists. The barred list will hold details of all officers and staff members who have been dismissed from policing after investigations under the relevant disciplinary regulations or process. Individuals will remain on the list indefinitely unless they win an appeal against their dismissal or make a successful review application, whereby they will have to provide clear evidence as to why they are suitable to rejoin policing.

Similarly, the advisory list will hold the details of individuals who retire or resign while they are the subject of a disciplinary investigation or who leave before an allegation comes to light. We are all aware of the concerns that have been raised in that regard in recent months. A key factor in the amendments is the inclusion of provision to enable police officers who retire or resign while they are the subject of an allegation and who have been added to the advisory list in the interim period to be brought back for misconduct proceedings. The secondary legislation — regulations — to be enacted once the primary power is in place will make provision for proceedings to be concluded in the former officer's absence. If it is found that a former officer would have been dismissed had they still been serving, they will be removed from the advisory list and added to the barred list.

The provisions will extend to law enforcement bodies in Northern Ireland, including the PSNI, the Belfast Harbour Police, the Belfast International Airport Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Those bodies will be unable to appoint any individual whose details are held on the barred list, and they must give careful consideration before appointing an individual whose details are held on the advisory list. Presently, Northern Ireland legislation does not support the introduction of that practice. The provisions will therefore guard against an individual who has demonstrated behaviours that make them unsuitable for a law enforcement role from gaining employment with another Northern Ireland law enforcement employer or another United Kingdom police force.

While there may not be the same statutory bar on employing individuals whose details are held on the barred and advisory lists for UK law enforcement bodies, they will be able to search and view the Northern Ireland lists and will therefore need to give due consideration before employing anyone who is on them. It is an ambition to put in place a reciprocal arrangement that will prevent any UK law enforcement body from employing an individual who is on any of the UK lists. I will seek to explore that further once all the UK lists are in place.

The amendments, which were developed for inclusion in the Bill at the request of the Committee for Justice, will close a legislative gap and further protect the public from the actions of individuals who are unsuitable to hold a law enforcement position and who might seek to abuse the power that would be entrusted to them in such a role.

I have also considered amendment Nos 76 and 77, tabled by Miss Nuala McAllister, which relate to new proposals to give the Police Ombudsman power to submit a report to the appropriate authority at any point during their investigation or before criminal proceedings have concluded. The amendments will allow PSNI special case hearings, also known as fast-track hearings, to proceed prior to the conclusion of a criminal case. They will amend section 56 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to give the ombudsman powers to submit a written report before an investigation is complete. In cases in which an investigator believes that the appropriate authority would be likely to determine that the "special conditions" are met, they will be able to submit a written report on their investigation to date. That, in turn, can facilitate a fast-track hearing. The special conditions are that there is sufficient evidence that the officer's conduct constitutes gross misconduct and that it is in the public interest for an officer to cease to serve without delay.

It is important to note that, on receipt of a referral to a fast-track hearing, the appropriate authority will still be required to consider whether disciplinary proceedings could prejudice any future criminal case and that, depending on that assessment, such proceedings may therefore not go ahead in some cases.

The proposals will also amend section 59 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 by seeking to remove the requirement for the ombudsman to await Public Prosecution Service (PPS) decisions to initiate criminal proceedings and, if initiated, the conclusion of those criminal proceedings before it may make a recommendation to the appropriate authority with regard to the discipline of a police officer.

Presently, in Northern Ireland, provisions in section 59 prevent disciplinary proceedings from being brought by the appropriate authority before it receives the ombudsman's memorandum. That can result in a lengthy period before disciplinary proceedings can be taken forward. As we know, there has been much public criticism about officers being suspended on full pay, often for many years, while they await the outcome of an ombudsman's investigation. I am very supportive of the amendment that will allow the ombudsman to submit an early report where it is clear that the officer concerned has committed gross misconduct. The amendment will provide the PSNI with access to the information needed to commence and conclude disciplinary proceedings without undue delay, subject to the appropriate authority's assessment of any prejudice to criminal cases. Where gross misconduct has been found, there is a clear public interest to expedite disciplinary proceedings for officers.

I believe that the package of measures provides us with an opportunity to ensure that the PSNI and other investigatory bodies with police powers are held to the highest standards and to ensure that we protect the public from any rogue officers who conduct themselves in a way that is incompatible with the responsibilities and the duties that they hold. It is important for public confidence that that can be done in a timely fashion. The combination of having barred and advisory lists, which will help with public protection, and having the ability to expedite gross misconduct proceedings will help to build confidence and trust, both of which are essential for people in our community. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): As part of the evidence on the Bill, the Committee received a submission from the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB). In the submission, the board advised that, while it is not part of the Bill, it would welcome a review of current police misconduct regulations. The board said that a review could identify improvements in the use of existing legislative provision that would enable police misconduct cases to be progressed expeditiously. A review could look at issues such as vetting procedures, how misconduct hearings are conducted, criminal proceedings against police officers and the use of regulation 13, which deals with the dismissal of officers during probation. The Committee welcomed that submission from the board and followed it up by writing to the Department to seek information on any work to review the misconduct regulations.

The Department confirmed that the regulatory framework within which the misconduct process operates was being considered. The Department said that it was engaging with key stakeholders, and it was expected that any changes on those matters would require primary or secondary legislation. The Department also later confirmed that the Minister had taken on board the results of a targeted consultation on police misconduct that had closed in October 2025 and would progress the issue of former officer misconduct via amendments to the Justice Bill. It also advised that other legislative changes to the framework would be made via secondary legislation by way of amendment to the Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. While the Committee had asked for police misconduct regulations to be explored, we did not have sight of the amendment during Committee Stage and, therefore, do not have an agreed position on it.

Amendment No 69, together with the new schedule at amendment No 127, deals with the establishment of barred and advisory lists for Northern Ireland. Amendment No 131 is a consequential amendment to update the long title.

The Minister has set out the purpose of the barred and advisory lists, so I will not repeat that. The Committee had asked the Minister to consider bringing forward the creation of barred and advisory lists by way of an amendment to the Bill. In June 2025, the Committee was advised that provision to create barred and advisory lists may be included in a second legislative consent motion on the Crime and Policing Bill at Westminster.

Capacity constraints in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel meant that the lists would apply only to the PSNI and not to other relevant bodies in Northern Ireland such as the Policing Board, the Police Ombudsman, the harbour police and the international airport constabulary.

A subsequent update from the Department in October 2025 informed the Committee that provision for the barred and advisory lists for the PSNI would no longer be included in the Bill by way of an amendment. That was hugely concerning, as the use of those lists would be important to improve confidence in policing and could assist with safeguarding issues. The Committee therefore agreed to ask the Minister whether there would be scope to bring the provisions forward via an amendment to the Justice Bill or as part of either of the two other pieces of primary legislation that were planned for the mandate. In late October, the Minister advised that it was her intention to bring forward an amendment to the Justice Bill to make provision for barred and advisory lists for all law enforcement bodies in Northern Ireland. That was welcomed by Committee members. We appreciate the Minister's commitment to closing that gap. It was also welcomed that the provisions are not limited to the PSNI but extend to the other relevant bodies here. The Committee did not have sight of the text of the amendments during its consideration of the Bill, however, so, although the Committee sought the provision, we were not able to take a formal position on amendment Nos 69, 127 and 131.

I will now speak on these matters as an individual MLA and DUP spokesperson on justice. Police misconduct and discipline are vital for a number of reasons: to keep people safe, but also to ensure that confidence in policing is increased, or that what confidence there is can be maintained. The subject matter that we are debating today is critical. The police force in Northern Ireland — the PSNI — is heavily scrutinised and regulated, not least in this place and through legislation, but by the Policing Board. That makes Northern Ireland and the PSNI unique. I will not address all the historical caveats and the journeys that we have been on with regard to the PSNI and the Royal Ulster Constabulary before it. The bravery of our Police Service must, however, be put on record: the bravery of police officers and their families, of people who serve in what is now the PSNI, but also of the people who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary at a time when they were under threat not only in their place of work and in the course of the service that they provided but at home, when they were off duty.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that we all echo his sentiments. As we see, young officers who have joined the PSNI today find themselves in the same situation whereby they and their families are threatened by those who wish to cause them harm and disrupt our community. It is important that they know that they have our full support. It is also important that they have our full trust and respect. That is why these regulations are so important, so that, where there are individuals who are engaged in misconduct that would bring shame on the Police Service, we are able to swiftly remove those individuals from their posts to protect the public and the reputation of the Police Service.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention and for her words. I echo the point about ensuring that we retain and maintain that professionalism as the Police Service serves all the people of Northern Ireland, keeping them safe, investigating crime and bringing people to justice. We are debating really important stuff here today.

I commend the Minister — I am making a habit of that — with regard to the barred and advisory lists. The Committee asked that of her, and she has tabled the amendments that will bring in those lists.

While the Committee cannot have a position on the amendments because of the time frame, we are more than comfortable with that arrangement and with the amendments and the bringing in of the police barred list and police advisory list. Those are critical, because we live in a place where people move about. Therefore, there are issues whereby, for whatever reason, people leave constabularies in England and Wales and come over here and vice versa. People in that line of work who have that trade might well travel elsewhere. It is about making sure that the constabularies throughout the United Kingdom are aligned and have parallel information that they can share to ensure that someone who applies for a transfer or to be recruited to the Police Service is properly vetted and attested and that everyone has confidence, even the management in the police, that those people are appropriate and are worthy of serving the people of Northern Ireland in that way.

It is important that it applies not just to the PSNI. Most people will not realise that we have other law enforcement agencies that cover different things, such as airports and ports, and we have the Policing Board. It is important that there is a holistic approach to dealing with barred lists and advisory lists. Therefore, I commend the Minister for her work with the Committee in ensuring that the amendments made it to the Consideration Stage of the Bill and that we can all debate their content.

That brings me to amendment No 68, which is a substantial amendment and covers three full pages of vast, dense text and detail, and it is really hard to get our heads around it. I understand the detail. I understand where the Minister is coming from and why she has moved in that way. I also believe that we need some way to ensure that disciplinary matters can be investigated and brought to light, even in circumstances where officers have retired.

The DUP understands that, for some officers whose professionalism and conduct have been called into question after they have retired, it may be beneficial to have misconduct proceedings concluded in order for them to clear their name. However, it must also be weighed up against the implications that making provision for disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against those no longer in service and employment would have for the rights of those individuals, not least in respect of federation and legal support. Additionally, this question must be asked: where else in the public sector is that legislated for? Someone who is retired from the police force loses the services, rights and privileges in being defended but then faces disciplinary action for something that could have happened years before.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Dillon: Can the Member outline in what other sphere anybody in the public sector has the privileges and rights that he talks about? I see those only in the PSNI. That is not to say that they need to be removed, but I do not think that anybody else in the public sector has the rights and privileges that PSNI officers have.

We also must remember that PSNI officers are in a position of power over people. They carry weapons, and they hold power over everybody in this place. We need to understand the significance of the power that they hold. Therefore, they must be held to a higher standard than others in the public service.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree that they should be held to a higher standard because of the nature of their work and the power that they have over us in enforcing the law and investigating crime. I get that, and it is a serious subject. However, the private sector gives privileges and support in retirement that the Police Federation may not be able to provide for retired colleagues, and that needs to be ironed out.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the point that the Member makes. However, the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust (PRRT) specifically supports former police officers either to find a new career and retrain or to be rehabilitated, if they have had an illness or injury, and continue to earn a living. There are special measures in place. I understand that the Member had some concerns about the limitations on some of the powers. Will he consider engaging with us before Further Consideration Stage? Some of the powers will be subject to regulations, which the Committee will have the opportunity to see. While the powers look incredibly wide-ranging, they will have some limitations on them. The powers will bring the PSNI into line with other police services across the UK; it does not go further or make life more difficult for them than it would be elsewhere.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention and her commitment to work with the DUP and the other parties to make sure that it is proper, robust and good legislation. The matter is of the utmost importance, and, in a perfect world, we would probably have had a Bill only on this. The Minister will know my style with regard to amendments, and it is a vehicle the Minister has used to bring the issue in, and it is topical. It is important, and I commit to working with the Minister in the coming weeks and months.

Mr Martin: I thank Paul for taking an intervention. In light of the comments from the Member for Mid Ulster, which highlighted the nature and uniqueness of what we are talking about today, will the Chair of the Justice Committee agree that, in many ways, the police force is unique? When there is danger, they do not run from it; they run towards it. The Police Service’s role in Northern Ireland is to keep us all safe — keeping me safe, keeping my family safe, keeping the Members of this place safe — that is their role, and they work in unique circumstances. The police see some of the most hideous and heinous things that, I hope, members of the Assembly do not have to see because that is their job, and that is what they sign up for. Taking on board the comments made by the Member for Mid Ulster, will the Chair of the Justice Committee agree that the police have an incredibly difficult and challenging job in Northern Ireland, which perhaps reflects the uniqueness of the role?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right about what police officers have to go through daily; for example, the horrific attack that police officers encountered in north Belfast last night. Therefore, we need to ensure that there is support for the police officers and the blue-light services, including the Ambulance Service and the firefighters.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will make my point first.

When they come across such an incident, we need to make sure that those officers are supported. There have been some great dramas and documentaries on TV over the last number of weeks and months that have highlighted the work of the police to the public, and that should be encouraged. People should be encouraged to watch those programmes.

I will give an intervention.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way, and I appreciate his remarks on the tough job that police officers do and the challenges that they face. Will the Member agree that, when wrongdoing is found on the part of police officers, it damages public confidence in the police? If we resist measures to ensure that those police officers are no longer able to carry out their function, we further that lack of confidence in greater society.

Mr Frew: The Member makes a valid point, but we have to make sure — this is why we are here — that the measures that we introduce for disciplinary processes and punishment represent an appropriate, proper and proportionate stance for the House to take. I have no doubt that that will play out in the next couple of hours of debate and then beyond, including at Further Consideration Stage and anything that happens in between. That is why the Department, the Minister and all parties must engage in what is a really important discussion.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. Your colleague made remarks with which we all absolutely agree, which is that the Police Service does a difficult job, as last night showed. One of the reasons that the police have come out in support of the amendments is that, when people hold such positions of responsibility and power in the community, it is so important that the public have confidence in them. The police have welcomed the ability to look into issues even after a person has resigned. Some officers even resign during misconduct proceedings. Does the Member not agree that, because of comments from the police, further weight should be attached to the amendments?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her comments. I commend her for the work that she does on the Policing Board and in other areas and for the work that she has done of late to expose some of the issues that we are debating. She will, no doubt, include a lot of that in her contribution today, and I look forward to hearing it. I commend MLAs who work diligently, work on the detail and scrutinise properly, so I commend the Member for her work in that regard.

I also commend the Members from my party who sit on the Policing Board for the sterling work that they do in really difficult situations to support the police while being a critical friend. They do that to ensure that the police force is the best that it can be. There will be issues that we need to iron out. This is about discipline and making sure that our Police Service is professional. It is about keeping people safe while making sure that people have confidence in the police. As MLAs, we need to make sure that we have confidence in the processes that we put in place.

The Minister stated her belief that amendment No 68, which is the new clause on police discipline, will not be retrospective in its application and will affect only those retiring after the provision has been commenced. The Minister will know that we had an issue about the retrospectivity of any amendment. I thank the Minister for the clarification. On the face of it, however, the amendment does not deal with the fact that there is no statute of limitations for the types of allegations that can trigger proceedings of that nature. In theory, that could mean that, where a PSNI officer has 25 or 30 years' experience and is still employed at the time that the new clause takes effect, they could retire yet still face the threat of being investigated for allegations relevant to Troubles-related investigations from the 1990s, for example, or other allegations of misconduct.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way, yes.

Mrs Long: I will clarify the point about retrospectivity. The issue is that, first, it would give the Chief Constable or the employing authority the same power as there is in England to recall somebody up to year after they leave service, where an allegation of misconduct is serious. It would need to be a serious allegation to meet that threshold. To recall someone beyond a year, the allegation would have to go to the ombudsman for sign-off, and, because of the laws around retrospectivity, the failing would have to have been pertinent at the time that it occurred. For example, changes to the law in the interim would not be allowed to be applied retrospectively as the standards to which the officer would have been held at that time.

There is no intention for the amendment to be used as another means of litigating legacy issues. It is about setting out a new way forward for dealing with misconduct that matches the system in England and Wales and will hopefully match the system in Scotland down the line while protecting the PSNI from the accusation that officers are retiring either after having been found to be in breach or because they fear that it is about to be disclosed that they have done something inappropriate. Legacy will be dealt with through the legacy Bill or whatever mechanism the UK Government decide on. That is not what the amendment is about, which is routine misconduct in the PSNI.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention. It is right that we try to close the loophole that allows people to retire with the intention to evade scrutiny and investigation for misconduct. The trick here is how we do that effectively without unintended consequences. I suppose that we are yet to be convinced about that, Minister, to be completely open and honest with you. We have concerns about amendment No 68. I am happy to work with you, your Department and your party over the next few weeks and months to iron out some of our concerns about that. In general, we are clear that, given Northern Ireland's unique circumstances in the past and in the future, the way we police here, the divided nature of our society, the terrorist threat and everything else that goes with it, it is far from straightforward to say that, because those powers are in place in England and Wales, they should apply here and be copied and pasted. We will explore that in the coming hours and days as we proceed.

We also see no real clarity in new clause 23A that misconduct proceedings would not be initiated or resumed for what could reasonably be viewed as allegations of trivial matters. The Minister said in one of her interventions that it would have to be gross or serious misconduct, if I quote her correctly.

Mrs Long: It needs to be serious.

Mr Frew: It needs to be serious misconduct. That might be in the text of the amendment, but what defines "serious misconduct"? We need to tease that out in the coming hours.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. It is really important to note that the misconduct proceedings and the way in which they can be handled are in the PSNI's code of ethics and service instructions. At the Policing Board, we often hear about what amounts to gross misconduct. Amendment No 68 states that it must amount to what would, in effect, have brought about a dismissal. Cases in the past few weeks, in which the Chief Constable has dismissed officers, shed some light on what gross misconduct is.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention. That is helpful. We will proceed with the debate and see how it plays out.

Another worry is that we cannot be certain of the practical consequences of the amendment if too much detail is left to regulation. That can be teased out with the Minister, the various parties and even the Committee, as she rightly said, over the coming months, in order to allay or assuage any concerns that my party and others may have.

I will move on to amendment Nos 76 and 77 from Nuala McAllister. We support the intention of the amendments, which is to ensure that, where gross misconduct is identified in a Police Ombudsman's investigation and before criminal proceedings are concluded, that information can be passed to the PSNI in a timely way that enables the swift dismissal of the officer responsible. It is, of course, in the public interest for officers who malign the reputation of the PSNI in such a way and whose offending may represent a threat to the public or result in serious criminal convictions to be dealt with speedily and robustly. However, that aim must be operationalised in a way that does not prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings or live investigations, undermine the role of the PSNI as the employer in those cases or, indeed, set aside due process for police officers who are affected. We have some hesitation in supporting the amendments, because they largely depend on the Police Ombudsman's assumption of what the PSNI would do in any given circumstances. That sits uncomfortably with us, in that, in times past, the ombudsman's recommendations have not always been accepted, either partly or fully, by the PSNI as the appropriate authority for disciplinary matters. From the framing of the amendment, it is not clear whether the PSNI or the Chief Constable would have to agree to receiving a report from the ombudsman in those cases.

Let me explain what I mean. We are giving the power to the Police Ombudsman to fast-track or to put in a report on an investigation or proceedings, but we want to know whether there is another way, the other way, with regard to the Chief Constable agreeing to receive that report —

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way to Nuala and then the Minister, or, if you want to sort it out between you, the Minister can go first.

Miss McAllister: The intention behind the amendment, particularly about the early report, where there is incontrovertible evidence, is that that report goes to the appropriate authority. The appropriate authority then sends special case hearings to the Chief Constable. As I understand it, some of those are taking place this week, as I speak. Basically, the amendment enables the same process as takes place in the PSNI, when it has been either the anti-corruption unit (ACU) or professional standards department (PSD) that has carried out the investigation. However, you are correct in saying that there is no obligation on the PSNI to accept the recommendations from the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (PONI). We saw that in the Katie Simpson case, where the PSNI has not accepted recommendations. It is right that there is due process and that people are allowed to have that hearing and representation as well. I hope that that helps to provide further clarity.

Mr Frew: I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: You are generous with your time, Paul. Thank you very much.

The other pertinent thing in this, which I raised in my opening remarks, is that, before the relevant authority forwards that to the Chief Constable and before the Chief Constable decides to proceed with disciplinary proceedings, they would, potentially, also have to liaise with PPS, to decide whether proceeding with disciplinary action could jeopardise any future criminal case. The problem is that the criminal investigation undertaken by PONI that would then go to the PPS often takes much longer than having incontrovertible evidence of gross misconduct. That does not mean that every case will end up in a special case hearing. It simply gives the Chief Constable the option, where he believes that it will not be prejudicial to a future case if there are criminal proceedings and where he believes that it is important that that person is removed from their position speedily, to have the opportunity to do that. They can receive the report and decide not to act on it for a variety of reasons, including if they feel that it might prejudice a criminal investigation.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention. Again, there were important points that are good to place on the record.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the time that the Member has given to interventions on the matter, but it is important, particularly given that Nuala and I are on the Policing Board and we deal with it daily. Cheryl and Keith are in the same position.

It is important to understand that the PSNI wants it. In fairness to the Chief Constable, he has used the special case review much more than it was used previously, and it is to his credit that he has done that. It is important because there are two issues in it. You either have officers who have been sitting at home for many years on full pay, doing no job, or you have officers with really serious allegations against them who are moved into other positions of power in the PSNI. That is a problem. It is really difficult to say which of those is the good option. Neither is a good option. The only good option is to get it dealt with, for the officers' sake as well, because, at the end of the day, if there are officers sitting and waiting for an outcome, they need it too. They need to be able to move on. Their families need to be able to move on. They need to know what the rest of their life looks like. That is important. It is important to PSNI as well, and it is important to all.

Mr Martin mentioned the things that officers have to face and deal with. We know better than anybody else. We sit on the Policing Board. We hear it. We work with police in our communities. We understand better than anybody else what police have to face daily. I do not remove anything from that.

For all those good officers, however, who do really good work every day on the things that they have to face, the officers who are not doing the right thing need to be dealt with quickly and removed, because they remove confidence from the police and the ability of good police officers to do their job effectively. They waste money and resources every day.

Mr Frew: The Member makes a really valid point. She comes from a very learned position, because she is on the Policing Board and spent time before that dealing with similar issues on the Justice Committee. I get that position, and I hear the Member loud and clear about how moving those things on is as much for the police officers involved and their colleagues as anything else. I hear the points about the significance and importance of the measures, and I thank the Member who tabled the amendments. She knows that I have great sympathy for all Members who table amendments and try to change the law, so I commend her on that.

I also commend the fact that Nuala put special conditions in her amendments, which are:

Those are very special conditions that help to inform the amendments and add reassurance.

In conclusion, I ask whether the Member, the Minister and their party will commit to examining whether the amendments could be strengthened and another layer of safeguards added to protect against those powers being used in a way that brings the ombudsman and the PSNI into conflict or potentially forces the hand of the PSNI to determine proceedings in a certain way. We wonder whether it might be appropriate to have not only PSNI agreement to fast-track those cases but a requirement for the PPS to attest that the exercise of the powers in amendment Nos 76 and 77 in any individual case would not prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. In my speech, I was going to say that I am willing to work with the Minister and the Department to see whether the amendments need to be strengthened in any way, because I am conscious that they are amendments to primary legislation, not a Bill in its entirety. I am content with that, and, if the Minister is content, I will work with her and the Committee.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member who proposed the amendments for her intervention. The DUP offers these comments in a constructive spirit, realising what we are trying to achieve. I look forward to listening to Members' contributions and to the Minister's winding-up speech on the group 4 amendments.

Mr McGrath: This group of amendments is about ensuring that policing and police oversight arrangements here remain effective, accountable and fit for purpose. That is important, because public confidence in policing is one of the foundations on which our justice system must rest. That confidence is built not only on the ability of the Police Service to prevent and detect crime but on the existence of the robust systems of accountability, transparency and professional standards that there must be. Therefore, it is right that the Assembly periodically reviews the legislative framework within which policing exists to ensure that it remains capable of meeting modern expectations.

I will first look at the amendments relating to police discipline and standards. The overwhelming majority of police officers serve with professionalism, integrity and dedication. It is important that we recognise that at the outset. They undertake difficult and often dangerous work on behalf of the public, and they deserve our support. Like other Members, I recognise that that is one of the most important lines that we can suggest from this place today. However, public confidence depends on the knowledge that, where serious misconduct occurs, we have the appropriate mechanisms in place to investigate it, to address it and to prevent those who are responsible from simply moving to other parts of the policing system. The amendments relate to police discipline together with the establishment of barred and advisory lists, and they seek to address precisely that issue.

In many respects, the provisions bring us into line with arrangements that already operate elsewhere across these islands. They help to ensure that officers who are dismissed for serious misconduct cannot simply re-enter policing or related roles without appropriate scrutiny. With my background in youth work, I can see the connection to child protection guidelines from 25 or 30 years ago, when we had to have the appropriate lists and checks put in place in order to stop people moving from one organisation to another and continuing with behaviours that were not appropriate. The public are entitled to know that high standards are expected, maintained and enforced. That helps to drive confidence in policing.

The same principle applies to the amendments that relate to information sharing and professional standards. Modern policing increasingly operates across organisational and jurisdictional boundaries, and effective cooperation requires confidence that the relevant information can be shared appropriately and that safeguards exist to protect the public and the integrity of the profession. It is about having the confidence that behind the scenes or "under the hood" in human resources departments there exists the ability to share all that information and ensure that people are not able to move around.

The second significant theme in the group 4 amendments relates to the role of the Police Ombudsman. The Office of the Police Ombudsman occupies a unique position in our policing architecture. Independent oversight is a fundamental component of maintaining public confidence in policing and ensuring that complaints and allegations are investigated thoroughly, fairly and transparently. The relevant amendments seek to clarify the circumstances in which the Police Ombudsman may provide reports to the appropriate authority while investigations or related proceedings remain ongoing.

As Members will appreciate, those issues require a careful balance to be struck. On the one hand, there is legitimate public interest in transparency, accountability and the timely reporting of issues that may require attention. On the other hand, there is a need to protect the integrity of investigations and any associated criminal proceedings. It is crucial that we get that balance right, so that we can ensure that there is confidence but also to make sure that we do not get any of the investigations wrong by jumping too soon.

It is our understanding that the amendments have been developed following engagement between the Department of Justice, the Office of the Police Ombudsman and the PSNI, and that the Police Service and the ombudsman are supportive of the proposed changes. That is an important point. Too often, discussions about police accountability can be framed as a choice between supporting policing or supporting police oversight. In reality, both effective policing and effective oversight are essential components of confidence in policing.

Where amendments are capable of strengthening the operation of the accountability framework and command support from the Police Service and the ombudsman, it should give Members confidence that they represent a practical attempt to improve how the system operates rather than a departure from its core principles. Ultimately, accountability mechanisms must be capable of carrying out their functions effectively. The relevant amendments seek to assist in achieving that objective, while maintaining appropriate safeguards and protections.

More broadly, the amendments in this group reflect a recognition that our institutions must evolve. The structures that govern policing and policing accountability today cannot simply be the structures that existed 20 or 30 years ago. We all know that new challenges emerge, public expectation changes and lessons have to be learned from experience. Our responsibility as legislators is to ensure that the framework that supports policing evolves accordingly, alongside our experiences and with time. Taken together, these amendments strengthen professional standards, improve accountability in policing structures, enhance public confidence and ensure that our policing framework remains consistent with best practice elsewhere. For the SDLP, those are important objectives. We support a Police Service that is effective in keeping our communities safe. We support police officers who carry out their duties correctly. We also support independent oversight to ensure that there is robust accountability and the highest professional standards. Those principles are not in conflict with one another; they are mutually reinforcing. Group 4, at its core, is about maintaining public confidence and ensuring that the systems that underpin policing remain modern, effective and credible, so the SDLP will support the broad thrust of the amendments in the group.

Ms Sheerin: I will speak on the group 4 amendments that Sinn Féin will support, and I thank the Minister and her party colleagues for the work on them.

We all acknowledge that there are massive problems with the structure and accountability of existing PSNI disciplinary procedures. The problems are not just historical but are reflected in recent media coverage and reports that have had negative implications for public confidence in policing. My colleague Linda Dillon, who represents our party on the Policing Board and has spoken about the issues for a number of years, will talk about that in more detail.

The recent Langdale review found that there was:

The review into the murder of Katie Simpson found institutional misogyny in the PSNI. We have seen a case in which the lies and testimony of a known abuser, who had previously been convicted, were believed, and we know the ramifications of that across society for confidence in policing. We have also had a report by the Police Ombudsman's chief executive that found that PSNI officers had abused their position to gain sexual favours. None of those things is acceptable in a modern society, and they have to be addressed.

The Police Ombudsman has called for new, fast-tracking disciplinary powers that can be used when it is obvious that there has been misconduct. We cannot have the current situation whereby police officers can be suspended indefinitely, remain on full pay for years at a time and then retire or resign before allegations are brought to light. That gives them a protection that is not deserved. In exchanges with DUP representatives on the Justice Committee, we have had a conversation about the fact that police officers are charged with a heavy responsibility and duty in society, which means that they should be held to a standard and do not have the right to implement the law when they break the law. That is important, and we have to bear it in mind.

Our justice system is underfunded and is slow because of that. That means that criminal investigations are often held up longer than they should be. It is not acceptable that police disciplinary processes cannot begin until criminal proceedings have concluded. We therefore welcome the amendments that allow the Police Ombudsman to submit a report for disciplinary procedures during an investigation when the evidence suggests that there has been wrongdoing, as well as the amendment that will allow police officers to be investigated during a criminal investigation where it looks as if there has been wrongdoing. We also welcome the creation of police barred and advisory lists, because somebody who is found to have broken the law cannot be responsible for implementing the law.

I welcome all the amendments.

Miss McAllister: I do not think that I have to, but, just in case, I declare that I am a member of the Policing Board.

I will speak to all the amendments in group 4, which, from my perspective, close a single gap from opposite ends when it comes to police accountability, whether that is through the PSD or the Police Ombudsman.

Amendment Nos 68 and 69 will stop officers evading accountability by resigning or retiring. Amendment No 127 will create a new schedule containing a barred list, to which any officers who have been dismissed can be added. They can also be added to the advisory list while under investigation. Amendment Nos 76 and 77 would give the Police Ombudsman a fast-track power to act on clear, incontrovertible evidence of gross misconduct rather than have to wait years for an investigation or a criminal trial to conclude.

Before I go into any more detail, and before any comments are made about the intent behind those amendments, it is really important that I acknowledge, as many Members do, that the PSNI is well respected and carries out an extraordinary public safety role. Its officers keep our communities safe while acting within the rule of law and adhering to its code of ethics. Public confidence is therefore needed.

I became a member of the Policing Board in 2022. There were many occasions before then on which issues to do with professional misconduct had come to my attention, but being a member of the Policing Board has given me a greater insight into police dealings when it comes to such things. There are gaps in processes, and those gaps must be closed. For anyone who is not aware, the anti-corruption unit in the professional standards department can initiate investigations of current serving officers. When those investigations conclude, the ACU has many tools at its disposal, including considering repositioning, line management issues, suspension and, following special case hearings, even dismissal.

As we all know, however, the police have found themselves in circumstances in the past — this is also the case for the entirety of the criminal justice system — in which they have not been resourced enough. The professional standards department, which is the appropriate authority, has stated many times to the Policing Board's performance committee that it is not resourced enough to carry out investigations as quickly as it would like to. My understanding from information that we have received at the board is that the PSD has put further resource and manpower into being able to carry out investigations more quickly. Currently, however, any officer under investigation can resign or retire, which takes the matter of misconduct proceedings completely off the table. Misconduct proceedings cannot be taken against anyone who has left the police. Nothing then prevents them from being employed by the other police force on this island, by a police force in another jurisdiction or, indeed, by a public service. It must also be said that, even where misconduct proceedings are finalised and a person still employed by the PSNI is found guilty of misconduct, we do not have a barred list or an advisory list. The amendments from the Minister are therefore welcome.

Although the majority of the comments that I make today will be about the most serious misconduct issues, it is important to highlight the fact that the Police Ombudsman and the police already have many powers. For officers under investigation, there are two possible duty adjustments, which are that they can be suspended or repositioned. There are also the options of a final written warning, a written warning, management advice and no further action, as well as the more serious options of dismissal without notice, reduction in rank and dismissal with notice. It is important to state that those options are used. Within the past few months, the Chief Constable has acknowledged at the Policing Board that he has taken on more special case hearings than previous Chief Constables did. He has the will to expedite such hearings to ensure that the process does not drag on.

A number of years ago, a rather serious internal issue for the PSNI came to the public's attention. Officers had been suspended for some time for sharing obscene images from scenes of sudden deaths. That reignited the debate around misconduct proceedings, because those officers were suspended for some time. I know that they have been dealt with and that was not a new issue at the time. I respect the fact that there were people on the Policing Board from before my time who had been working on those issues, but there was then an opportunity to highlight the issue again. In 2021 and 2022, 10 officers resigned or retired whilst under investigation for misconduct, but, by 2026, 66 officers had resigned or retired whilst under investigation. Some might see that as an insignificant number because the PSNI is a large police force. It may be a very small number, but the police are there to protect the public. They are the first responders to the scene of a crime, scenes of serious incidents and, along with other first responders, natural disasters, and it is important that the public have confidence in them to carry out their role. It is also important that they are held to the standard that is expected of a public servant in a position of responsibility and power, especially considering the use-of-force powers that they have. Therefore, I do not make any apology for ensuring that my voice and other voices are heard when it comes to the accountability and scrutiny of the PSNI on that aspect.

I have long campaigned for the issue to be fixed. When I wrote to the Justice Minister, I was delighted with the positive response that the Department was going to table an amendment. It is better that it comes from the Department of Justice so that it can be strengthened and made as strong as it possibly can be. I also recognise that, in her speech, the Minister outlined that there would be further regulations on the issue, reflective of those in England and Wales.

I cannot begin to discuss the detail of all the amendments without touching on the case that reignited public outrage at the current ability of PSNI officers to resign or retire whilst under a misconduct investigation: the case of Katie Simpson. That is important and relevant to the amendments that are before us. First, it is about time — time enabling evasion of misconduct proceedings. Back in January 2023, I first brought to the attention of the then Chief Constable the people who had come to me, internally and externally, about the case and the handling of the murder of Katie Simpson. In January 2023 — the date is very important — I went back to the Chief Constable, who, rightly, referred me to the Police Ombudsman. I went to the Police Ombudsman, and I asked every other person who had been in contact with me to do the same. The Police Ombudsman had already opened a case back in 2020; the case had been opened almost three years to the day before I returned to the Chief Constable. However, a year later, the Creswell case had gone to trial, and it was clear that, by that stage, the PSNI's professional standards department and the Deputy Chief Constable had in their hands the PONI report into the investigation. I do not know why it was not acted on at that time, but most of the officers who were involved were still employed by the PSNI. Then Jonathan Creswell took his own life and evaded justice. I could then speak out publicly about the case. I could not do so previously because I did not want to jeopardise the case.

Despite numerous — I mean numerous — attempts in private meetings at the Northern Ireland Policing Board, at committees and in meetings with the then Deputy Chief Constable, the new Chief Constable, the former Chief Constable and representatives from the professional standards department, there was an unwillingness to deal with the issue. I say that as someone who stood this morning in defence of the PSNI, in recognition that it does a brave job. However, it must be highlighted that, when the PSNI needs to be held to account, it should be. In this instance, when it came to public representatives, along with many members of the public, bringing forward issues, there was an unwillingness to deal with the issues arising from Katie Simpson's murder.

That was back in June 2024. How many of the officers who were under investigation have resigned or retired? The answer is five; two of whom were of a senior rank. Of all the officers who were involved in the case, not many more were being investigated. In the three years from PONI first opened the case — it took a long time to complete it and bring forward misconduct proceedings — five had resigned or retired. In the end, it did not matter. They were no longer needed. However, flash forward to today, and you see that the PSNI has moved on.

The Melia review acknowledged and set out in black and white many of the things that I have been saying for years, and for which I was condemned by Members and members of the public: the PSNI needed to wake up. No matter who you are or what rank you hold, you ought to be held accountable. The PSNI has finally realised that it needs to change and move on. I welcome the comments by the Deputy Chief Constable and the Chief Constable that they agree that misconduct proceedings need to change. They need to speed up and ensure that people cannot evade disciplinary proceedings by retiring or resigning. We cannot stop them from doing so — that is a discussion for another day — but we must allow the professional standards department and PONI to continue those proceedings.

I want to address the detail of the individual amendments. I said that I welcome the amendments from the Minister on the barred list and advisory list. Why should an officer, who is subject to a case of serious misconduct, be able to retire or resign and then go elsewhere to be employed within the UK or the Republic of Ireland? That should not happen, especially if that officer more than likely was going to be dismissed from the PSNI here. Currently, the police can file an intelligence report for future vetting when an officer leaves under a cloud. There is no barred list, so nothing prevents re-employment. The Minister said that individuals would remain on the list indefinitely unless they won an appeal against their dismissal or made a successful review application, when they would have to provide clear evidence of why they were now suitable to rejoin the police. It is important to have that option for people but also to emphasise that the system needs to be appropriate. It needs to be accepted that if a person is going to be a serving police officer, not only in this force, there should be a reflection on past proceedings.

I welcome the Minister's comments about the policy intent of the amendments, including that the advisory list will hold details of individuals who retire or resign while they are the subject of a disciplinary investigation. As I said, why should someone who resigns or retires, intentionally or unintentionally, while under investigation go on to be an officer in any other police force or work in law enforcement in Northern Ireland? When I brought the case of Katie Simpson into the public domain and to the Policing Board, along with other issues that concern cases that cannot be mentioned publicly, officers resigned or retired, some within a matter of months, and sometimes within weeks. I am not saying that there was intention behind that, but it should not be acceptable. There need to be repercussions for everyone, no matter their role.

I welcome the Minister saying that there will be further work on the reciprocal arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on sharing the barred list to prevent re-employment. That is important, and I am more than happy to work with the Minister at the Policing Board and do what I can to ensure that all the mechanisms are in place to enable that. It is important to highlight that officers in Northern Ireland carry out their duties under different circumstances to officers elsewhere, not only across the UK and Ireland but anywhere in the world. It is important to highlight that the list is not going to be publicly available. Someone cannot just google it and find out who is on it, especially when someone is under investigation.

I want to follow up on comments made by the Chair of the Committee regarding the severity of the misconduct that we are talking about, particularly in amendment Nos 68 and 69. Amendment No 68 is lengthy, and sets out conditions at (3A), (3B) and (3C). I raise that because it is important. I would like to see the DUP support those amendments. I understand that it has concerns that they might include legacy cases and cases that go really far back. What is laid down there will come in regulations.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mrs Long: I tried to assuage those concerns. It is worth noting, however, that the regulation will apply only to someone who retires after the legislation becomes operational.

Officers who have already retired or who retire while we await Royal Assent will not be covered, so the provision is retrospective only in the sense that, as, for example, in the regulations for England and Wales, the period by which the Chief Constable can go back is a year. It does not open a can of worms by going back a lot further, because, for the provision to apply to someone, they would have had to retire after the legislation was introduced.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister. I was not coming to that point, so it is helpful that she intervened to highlight it.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mrs Dillon: Given what the Justice Minister has just said, does the Member agree that not many officers remain in PSNI who were in the RUC at the time that has been referred to? If there are any, we are talking about a very small number.

Miss McAllister: Absolutely. It needs to be said that, from my perspective, the intent of the amendments was never to include such legacy cases. We know that the PSNI is under overwhelming stress in dealing with legacy cases and having to take resources from current cases in order to do so.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Burrows: The Member used the word "intent". Just to be absolutely clear, there are officers still in service who served during the Troubles. I could name 10 — obviously, I will not — off the top of my head. I appreciate that it is not retrospective, but, if Officer A retires or resigns after the legislation passes and is given Royal Assent, is it possible that that officer could have a case taken that relates to the Troubles? Legally possible or not? Clarify that for me, please.

Miss McAllister: Not under these amendments; that is what I was coming to.

There are three conditions: A, B and C. If a case is made under condition C, in that the allegation comes to light after the person retires, once the Act is commenced, the Police Ombudsman must, in serious cases, take into consideration:

Also to be taken into account is the fact that the regulations further up in the conditions that are set out will have a time limit. I appreciate that that is not in the Bill, but it will be set out in regulations that will mirror those in England and Wales. The Justice Minister has committed to that today.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mrs Long: There will be two restrictions on what can happen. The first is that, in the case of anyone who has retired in the previous year, it will be for the Chief Constable to decide whether the threshold has been met; that mirrors the regulations in England and Wales. The second condition in England and Wales is that someone can be recalled only where the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) agrees that that is appropriate. We do not have that facility, which is why the ombudsman would have to agree that. A series of conditions and tests would need to be met in the ombudsman's consideration of whether anything beyond a year may be considered. That would require the ombudsman to prove, first, that it would be proportionate, fair and reasonable to reopen the issue. The second test is about whether there would be an impact on public confidence, and the third is about the seriousness of the allegation in question. The allegation would have to be of sufficient seriousness that, had it been brought up when the person was in service, they would have faced dismissal.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Burrows: I am still not getting the clarity that this requires. I need to make this 100% clear. You have laid down criteria for the ombudsman. My view is that the ombudsman has been institutionally biased against the Royal Ulster Constabulary; in fact, her most recent statements have had to be set aside. If the case was an old one that related to the Troubles in which the allegation was something akin to collusive behaviour, you could, if you wanted to, almost certainly tick off those criteria and meet them. You would say that it was the most serious breach of confidence in a public officeholder; that is number 1. Number 2, would it affect public confidence? There would be those in one community who would say that it would not. Number 3, would it be sufficiently serious? Well, it potentially relates to the covering up of evidence. Is it or is it not legally possible that a police officer could retire after 40 years' service and be brought back at the request of the ombudsman to face a case of misconduct for something that allegedly happened in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s? Is that legally possible: yes or no?

Miss McAllister: I am happy to give way to the Minister if she wants to come in.

Mrs Long: I am more than happy to answer that. First, I draw the Member's attention to the fact that we do not currently have an ombudsman. It is therefore unfair to discuss a private individual and make allegations about how they conducted themselves in their role or how their office conducted itself. It is unhelpful for somebody who was formerly in the PSNI to make disparaging comments of that nature about the ombudsman's role and office.

Secondly, there is a theoretical possibility that, if the ombudsman believed that there was a serious breach that would have led to dismissal at the time, someone could be recalled. I hope that the Member is not suggesting that we should simply turn a blind eye to such a serious breach, given his previous role in PSD.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her intervention.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? It will be the last time.

Miss McAllister: In a wee second, because I want to go on.

One of the issues that I am raising here is the seriousness of the alleged misconduct and the public interest. We should not use anything to undermine public interest and serious misconduct. Any officer who would have been dismissed for serious misconduct had they been a serving officer should be dealt with.

When it comes to legacy, we already have institutions and the PSNI, which is under overwhelming stress and has a heavy workload, dealing with those cases. Of course, we already have PONI cases on legacy. However, the amendment arose from what the Policing Board and the police themselves recommended to close the gap on current accountability.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: I will give way to Mr Burrows, and then I will give way to you, Minister.

Mr Burrows: I am being really constructive here. First, it required two interventions to get the cast-iron, black letter law fact that, under the legislation, it is theoretically possible. We have now established that. I heard words such as "intent" and "not really". This is legislation. Secondly, on my disparaging comments towards the previous ombudsman, it was a High Court judge, Mr Justice Scoffield, who said that she must set aside all her previous reports and put a disclaimer on them. Thirdly, if a police officer — I do not care whether they are now 90 years of age — did something wrong and was involved in something serious during the Troubles, they should be — [Inaudible.]

Mr Burrows: Let me just finish.

— brought to account for it. My point is this: we have a society in which an ombudsman, as in the office, has chased police officers and accused them of collusive behaviour and not brought one to book. [Inaudible.] [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. There are a couple of things. Sorry, Nuala.

Mr Burrows, you walked into the Chamber.

Mr Burrows: I appreciate that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, no. Do not give me that, because it is not going to work.

If a Member wishes to contribute to the debate, the courtesy is that they are here to listen to at least two Members speak beforehand. This arose yesterday. There is a bit of a disparity, and it has been challenged before. My understanding is that, when a Member gives way, they are finished, and, when they stand up, they are indicating that the intervention is finished. However, we need to make sure that, when Members intervene, they do so on the basis of making a short intervention rather than a burst of short speeches.

I have watched the debate from the start, and it has been constructive. A lot of Members have fed into it, despite some difficulties, and I hope that we will continue in that vein. However, given that Nuala McAllister was about to get into her amendments, it is only fair that we suspend the sitting now, if you do not mind. As we all know, the Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Nuala McAllister will be the first Member to be called after Question Time to continue her speech on her amendments.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was abolished in 1998 as part of an overhaul of wider youth justice legislation. No consideration has been given to its reintroduction as part of my Department’s work to review and increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR).

Doli incapax enabled the prosecution of some younger children, if it could be proven that they had the cognitive maturity to understand that their actions represented serious wrongdoing. In the years since its abolition, advances in neuroscience have shown that children’s brains are still maturing well into adolescence and that they lack the cognitive, emotional and moral capacity to be held criminally responsible in the same way as adults. That is a scientific fact, and we should not force children to prove it to the courts.

Our understanding of the impact of trauma, adverse childhood incidents and societal factors on children has also increased in recent years, and we know that many of those factors can lead children into offending behaviour. That has resulted in the adoption of a child-first approach to youth offending. Consequently, the number of children facing prosecution has greatly reduced. Indeed, it is extremely rare for a child under the age of 14 to be sentenced to custody in Northern Ireland.

Reintroducing doli incapax would have a significant operational impact on justice partners, particularly the police and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), who would be faced with having to process every child who is accused and arrested up to the point of an assessment and a decision being made. In many cases, that could be nugatory work at a time when resources are stretched. I therefore do not believe that returning to doli incapax is in the best interests of children, victims or communities. Instead, we should focus on working with children to help them to understand the impact and consequences of their behaviour, encourage them to take responsibility for their actions and support them to make changes and avoid future offending. That is the most effective way to ensure that our communities are safer and that the number of victims is reduced.

Miss McIlveen: That is disappointing to hear. How does the Minister intend to address the concerns of professionals over the heightened risk of exploitation of children by criminals should her party colleague's amendment on raising the age of criminal responsibility be passed?

Mrs Long: The rules are already in place in the defence of coercion. They would apply in situations in which younger children are coerced into criminal activity and be dealt with under child criminal exploitation measures, in which case the offence is committed by the older person rather than the child.

If you do not raise the age of criminal responsibility, the danger is that young children will still be groomed into criminal gangs but, instead of being able to treat them as victims, the police will first have to process them as potential criminals. That has led to the criticism that too few children are being referred to the national referral mechanism (NRM) as a result of the coercive activity that led them to offend in the first place.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for her pronunciation of "doli incapax" given how I was going to say it. I appreciate your clarifying that, Minister.

Does the Minister agree that we have seen, across the world, that that model is costly and inefficient and that best practice across the world tells us that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility leads to better outcomes for young people across our society?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member. It is a long time since I studied Latin at school, and I doubt that my pronunciation is perfect, so either of us could be right on that.

Our understanding of how children's brains develop and the influences that can be brought to bear on them has moved on. We have a successful youth justice system that aims to deflect young children away from the criminal justice system at every stage and to support them and their families to tackle offending and dangerous behaviours.

It is important to look at what other jurisdictions do in that space. Those that tend to have better outcomes for their young people and safer communities are those that tend not to criminalise people at a young age but instead put in place the supports to protect them from potential criminal exploitation and to deal with potential offending behaviours at the earliest point so that young people do not go on to commit more serious offences.

Ms Mulholland: I will not try to pronounce the phrase, because Emma has confused me about how I was going to pronounce it. Does the Minister agree that reintroducing that framework would be a backward step, because we would end up with 10-to-13-year-olds still being open to arrest and prosecution rather than being diverted away from the justice system altogether?

Mrs Long: Were it to be reintroduced, we could end up running the risk of children of any age being referred into the formal justice system and considered potentially capable of understanding the crime that they had committed. We either accept that there is a minimum age of criminal responsibility or apply it differently.

The further concern that I have is that we would end up expending significant resources on determining whether a child has the understanding and capability to be held criminally accountable, when we already know from all the studies that have been done on children's development that, even where a child knows that they have done wrong, their ability to conceive of permanence, for example, can be challenging, even into their teens.

We also know that we have restricted resources, so to spend huge amounts of time looking at every child who is referred into the system in order to make that decision is to spend money that would be better spent on supporting those young people, diverting them from criminal activity, supporting their families and peers so that they are no longer as vulnerable to criminal activity and, hopefully, investing in support for victims. Our main concern is that we do right by society as a whole. By removing young people from the justice system, we have been able to demonstrate significant improvements in people's outcomes.

Mr Burrows: The Minister of Justice mentioned victims. Can she confirm — I would appreciate a yes or no answer — whether a 13-and-a-half-year-old boy who upskirted, downbloused or inflicted grievous bodily harm on a female teacher would, should Ms Mulholland's amendment go through, be subject to criminal prosecution if the victim wishes it? Yes or no?

Mrs Long: With respect, the Member has a right to put his question, but I have the right to answer in whatever form I choose, and I will choose to answer in my own words and not those provided to me.

As I stand here now, if someone under the minimum age of criminal responsibility commits a serious offence, we do not simply allow that person to go free. There are issues of public protection that have to be considered. Issues concerning that child and the risk at which they have placed themselves have to be considered, as do risks to other potential victims. It is not about creating a structure that would allow those who commit serious offences to get off scot-free and not be held accountable; it is about creating an accountability framework that is not part of the formal criminal justice system but allows young people to be confronted with the seriousness of their actions and for the necessary support and education to be provided to them so that they can desist from their offending behaviours. I therefore believe that, in such cases, appropriate measures would be taken.

It is often said that hard cases make bad law, so, in debating what the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be, our focus should not be on seeking out hypothetical hard cases. It should be on looking at the evidence base that we have on child development and brain development and how we can support our young people better so that they do not offend but instead become well-adjusted, positive and constructive citizens in our community, which is what we would all like to see.

Mr Beattie: How long would it take the PPS, the PSNI and the Youth Justice Agency to be ready or what could be a significant rise in the minimum age of criminal responsibility?

Mrs Long: We have already been clear that we will have to introduce the right structures, and those will have to be scrutinised and stress-tested. That will be the start of a journey, not the end point. We would not enable the legislation immediately, because we will want to spend time with our justice partners looking at the mechanisms that need to be in place.

To be clear, the Youth Justice Agency already deals with many young people who fall into that category or exhibit behaviour that falls short of a criminal offence in order to deflect them from criminal settings and deal with their behaviour. It is not an unknown thing that the Youth Justice Agency has no experience of, but I reassure the Member for Upper Bann that we would not want to make rapid changes in a space where we do not have the proper belt-and-braces response in place. We want to be sure that young people are protected. Often, their behaviour is not just a safeguarding issue for them but a danger to others, and we need to make sure that there are proper checks and balances in place to hold young people to account for their conduct but in an age-appropriate manner.

Mrs Long: On 1 June 2023, the total prison population in Northern Ireland was 1,858. By June of this year, the population had increased by over 12% to 2,086. It is to the credit of the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) and its staff that prison establishments have maintained stability and continue to perform effectively despite that pressure.

In many cases, justice responses to individual needs and risks may offer the right answers but at the wrong time. Much more could be achieved if there were a collective focus on prevention in the community, rather than the justice system stepping in when earlier opportunities have been missed or when provision was inadequate. That would also mean fewer people in prison, and it would allow the Prison Service to use its resources effectively. I will continue my work to secure a fair budget settlement for Justice, including the funding required to deliver a safe, effective and efficient Prison Service with rehabilitation at its core. I will also continue to be clear about the consequences if that cannot be achieved.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the answer. What is the impact of the ongoing budget uncertainty on our prisons?

Mrs Long: The budgetary pressure on the Prison Service, as with other parts of the justice system, can mean difficult choices and poorer outcomes for those in the prison system. If we are to safely manage significant and sustained population increases, the Prison Service must have enough officers with the right training and support to do their jobs. It also needs a modern fit-for-purpose estate that can accommodate the population safely and reduce crowding. Prisoners need to be able to access the services and support delivered by a range of partners that can address their needs and risks.

Prison Service needs the funding to commission the services required to match the level of need. Many of those services are provided by third-sector partners in the community and voluntary sector, and the uncertainty that faces their budgets is also a challenge for Justice. Ultimately, poorer experiences in custody will lead to poorer outcomes on release and a greater likelihood of reoffending, which perpetuates the damaging cycle that we have and results in more victims of crime. Without proper funding, Prison Service cannot fulfil its core purpose of making the community safer by supporting and challenging people to change.

Ms Ferguson: We know that our prison population has increased by 50% over the last five years. I welcome your statement that prevention in the community and rehabilitation should be at the core of the justice system. Can you update us on any discussions you may have had with the Communities Minister and the Health Minister about the impact of community health and housing insecurity on both the reliance on short-term custody and recidivism rates?

Mrs Long: We have had a number of conversations over many years, and, through the Executive, the Ministers are part of the wider programme to reduce offending and reoffending and sit on the programme board to drive that initiative forward. We recognise that stable accommodation, legitimate employment and the availability of mental health and addiction services are three key things that will help people to reintegrate into the community and build a successful and positive life. Family support is another pillar that can make a huge difference, and we do all we can to allow people to maintain it.

There is a role for all the Departments. We need to find better jobs for people, and the Department has recently launched an organisation called The Bridge, which is business-led. It will support employers who want to employ people with a criminal record and help them feel confident about taking forward those employment opportunities.

If we are to see prisoners come out of prison and not reoffend, it is important that they have the opportunity for productive activity during the day and have access to mental health and addiction services, because many of them will trace their offending back to addiction. It is also important that they have stable accommodation. We are doing some bail support pilot work for people who are currently on remand. We will pilot that first with women in the prison system, and that will require cooperation between all those Departments.

Mr Dunne: Minister, time and time again, you say that our prisons do not have a culture problem, but, time and time again, ordinary hard-working prison officers tell me that there is a fundamental problem in our prisons, with some prison wings out of control. Minister, have you lost control of Northern Ireland's prisons, and what will you do to address the fundamental issue around confidence in our Prison Service, both for the general public and, importantly, for our prison officers, who often put their own welfare on the line?

Mrs Long: First of all, I recognise the incredibly difficult job that prison officers do, and I am never shy about saying that I think that they place themselves in a very difficult role. It is a very challenging role in which they deal with people who are vulnerable and volatile, often in equal measure. It is undoubtedly the case that the more people who are in a prison and the more crowding that there is, the more likely it is that people will behave in a way that is disruptive or even dangerous to themselves and others. However, for the Member to suggest that prisons or wings are out of control is simply not the case. I ask him to read the recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland reports on Hydebank Wood women's prison, Hydebank Wood Young Offenders Centre, Hydebank Wood Secure College and Magilligan prison. Whilst there were recommendations that suggested where improvements can be made — we take those seriously and will implement them — suggesting that those prisons are out of control is fundamentally to deny the reality that we have two of the best prisons in the UK here in Northern Ireland.

Mr McNulty: Given the recent rapid and unprecedented growth in the prison population and the likelihood of further increases, what plans does the Minister have in place to address that additional pressure on the Prison Service, either by reducing the prison population or by securing additional resources?

Mrs Long: There are a number of things that we are looking to do. I already mentioned the bail support pilot that we hope to roll out, which will allow us to trial alternative methods of supporting people while on bail — so, outside the prison system. We are starting that with women in the first instance, but, if successful, we will try to roll it out across the male estate. That is important in giving judges, the PSNI and prosecutors the confidence that bail is a legitimate alternative to remand. Too often, people are placed on remand as a way of managing risk, but that risk is being managed in a way that could be managed in the community just as effectively. We want to create that confidence. More people are on remand at this point in time in Northern Ireland than in any other jurisdiction on these islands. We have a continuously high remand population.

The other thing that we have done is ask for additional resources so that we can provide modular accommodation, which would allow us to upscale the number of beds that we have available in the prison system, not on a temporary basis but permanently, so that we are able to accommodate increasing numbers in an appropriate manner that does not cause the crowding that can lead to a more volatile environment for prison officers to work in. I have also given the Prison Service the authority to recruit new prison officers, and that is happening as we speak. There are a lot of things that we can do.

When it comes to early release, I am very reluctant to interfere, other than in exceptional circumstances, with the length of sentence that has been given by a judge. If this is a growing problem with which we will have to wrestle, as other places have, I do not see it as exceptional any longer but, rather, as a matter of routine that we need to manage within our estate.

Mrs Long: The Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill was introduced to the Assembly on Tuesday 3 March. Second Stage took place on Monday 16 March. Committee Stage began on 18 March, with the Bill being referred to the Committee for Justice for scrutiny. The Committee launched a call for evidence on 31 March, which concluded on 22 May.

The key purpose of the Bill is to improve the effectiveness and transparency of sentencing, and, in so doing, enhance confidence in sentencing decisions and the criminal justice system more widely. The Bill includes clauses to implement many of the recommendations arising from the last sentencing policy review, as well as the introduction of Charlotte's law and a statutory aggravator model for hate crime. Sentencing is one area of public policy that is constantly evolving. Therefore, on 14 January 2026, I launched a review of further sentencing policy issues to identify any legislative proposals that may be taken forward in the next mandate.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. You mentioned that this is an area of work that is constantly evolving. Can you provide an update on criminalising the creation or sharing of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images?

Mrs Long: As Members will be aware, I had hoped to be able to do that at Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill for new offences to criminalise the creation or sharing of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images. Unfortunately, we were unable to do it via an LCM, which would have brought us into line with England and Wales. It would also have left us with a gap, given the structure of our own laws. Therefore, it is better that we do it locally and have the opportunity to scrutinise it here in the Assembly.

As we have moved on into the drafting phase, however, it has become apparent that this is an exceptionally complex issue and that more time is needed to ensure a proportionate, robust and comprehensive response to addressing all aspects of that behaviour. Therefore, in the interests of ensuring the effective progression of the Justice Bill, I have decided to look at alternative options in the form of other legislative vehicles that will be available to me in bringing forward those proposals within the current mandate. That includes the potential to use the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill or, indeed, the victims and witnesses Bill.

Mrs Long: There is a clear need to reform and modernise the justice system. Along with justice partners, I have prioritised the speeding up justice programme of work, which is delivered across five key projects.

The first project is on out-of-court disposals, where plans are in place to bring forward secondary legislation to let police deal with more low-level offences using penalty notices. That will divert suitable cases from the courts and free up resources for more serious crime. The second project is on committal reform. Work is progressing on direct committal, which I intend to implement later this year. That will help the most serious cases reach the Crown Court more quickly. The third project, on early engagement, is exploring earlier engagement between police, prosecution and defence to move cases through the system more quickly. The focus is on better file quality, timeliness and reviewing?'Better Case Management'?procedures. Those projects are still in pilot phase but are showing early signs of improvement. The fourth project, on the remit of the Magistrates' Court, is considering options to expand Magistrates' Court jurisdiction. Finally, the project on digital, which supports all the speeding up justice projects, is implementing digital initiatives to help to embed reform and support long-term sustainability. Taken together, these reforms are intended to reduce avoidable delay, improve the use of criminal justice resources and ensure that court capacity is focused on the most serious cases. The pace of delivery will, however, remain closely linked to the resources that are available to support implementation.

Published Northern Ireland case processing statistics show a slight improvement between 2023-24 and 2024-25, with the median time for criminal cases across all courts falling from 190 to 189 days.?That is also down considerably from the height of 226 days in 2021-22.?That has been driven mainly by quicker processing times in the Magistrates' Court. In the Crown Court, charged cases have improved slightly, but case processing times for cases proceeding by way of summons remain long. The Criminal Bar Association action has had a significant impact on the Crown Court and may impact on the pace at which those reform initiatives can be implemented fully.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the updates and improvements that the Minister has set out in her response. She mentioned the issues with the Criminal Bar Association. Can she give us an update on how negotiations are going in that process? A swift conclusion to that issue would unlock much of the delay that we are currently experiencing.

Mrs Long: First, not all the delays that we experience in the justice system are down to the current action by the criminal Bar, although it has contributed significantly to them. As you know, the accelerated review concluded, as planned, on 27 April. I made decisions and met the criminal Bar and the solicitors' criminal Bar last week, and I put those decisions to them. They have been welcomed by the Law Society and the solicitors' criminal Bar, and I await the outcome of meetings that are going on in the criminal Bar and the Bar Council itself for any response that they may have to the proposals.

Mrs Dillon: Last week, the Policing Board met the public protection branch. It raised some really significant challenges that it faces. We know the attrition rates in some of the cases of violence against women and girls and children. That needs to be seriously addressed. Minister, will you agree to meet some members of the public protection branch? I think that some of the issues that they face in the branch could be addressed through very minor adjustments. Will you engage directly with the people who are working on the ground, rather than their senior officers, to find out what can be done to help them to do their job of protecting women and girls and children?

Mrs Long: To reassure the Member, I say that I have met representatives of the public protection branch — senior officers and others who work at the coalface in that work — and I am conscious of the difficult and challenging work that they do. Obviously, we want to be able to get them more resources to do that job better. If changes can be implemented as part of the work that we are doing to speed up justice, we would, of course, be open to that and regularly meet to discuss that. It is not just a Department of Justice project: the project has been endorsed by the criminal justice board, which includes the PSNI, the PPS, the Lady Chief Justice and, crucially, the Victims' Commissioner. It is important that all those different aspects can be discussed. If the Member wishes to engage with me further on the particulars of the areas of concern that she is raising, I am more than happy to meet her to discuss it.

Mrs Long: Patten envisaged a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland that is grounded in accountability, community partnership and policing with the consent of all. Twenty-five years on, while it is right to reflect on progress, it is wrong to suggest that the vision of Patten has not been realised.

The transformation of policing in Northern Ireland has been profound. Today, the Police Service of Northern Ireland operates within a human rights-based framework, subject to rigorous and independent oversight and anchored in community-focused policing. Public confidence in policing and the wider justice system is strong. Significant progress has been made over that time to ensure that the service is accountable, community-based and accepted by all parts of society. That progress is all the more notable given the very real pressures that policing continues to navigate, particularly around constrained resources and legacy issues. Despite that, Northern Ireland remains one of the safest places to live, work and raise a family in these islands, reflecting both effective policing and safer communities.

I note the assessment of the current security threat and, in particular, the positive direction in which Northern Ireland has moved over the past 25 years. Whilst we must never be complacent, particularly given recent events in Lurgan and Dunmurry police stations, it is gratifying to note the sustained decline in the number of security incidents over the past decade. I will continue to work with partners within the remit of my role to enable further movement towards a safer society in Northern Ireland.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much, Minister. Will you confirm how the report's recommendations will, in fact, shape departmental priorities; whether any of those recommendations will require legislative change; and, if so, when such proposals might be brought before the Assembly?

Mrs Long: As the Member will be aware, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee reports are not binding on the Assembly and are a matter for Westminster. However, we will, of course, and always do reflect on any important report that deals with the issue of policing.

One of the report's key findings was the Chief Constable and my clear agreement that the continued burden of legacy on the justice system, particularly on policing, is not a sustainable one. I have already been engaging with the Chief Constable, the Secretary of State and, more widely, with the Government on that issue. It is incredibly important that we make the case that, with any new legacy arrangements, the cost of servicing those legacy arrangements and the residual cost of dealing with legacy needs now to be met by the UK Government. It is not a Northern Ireland-specific issue: it is a UK Government issue and should be dealt with as such.

It is also a burden on our policing and justice system that exists nowhere else in the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's narrative on that matter.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topicals.

Mrs Long: I am more than happy to do that. I reiterate the comments that I made in that regard this morning when we were debating legislation. The Speaker was generous enough to give me the latitude to do so. It is incredibly important to recognise what a horrific scene unfolded last night and how challenging and frightening that it must have been, not only for the residents who initially intervened courageously to try to save a man's life but for those from the PSNI, the Ambulance Service and other services who responded to and were confronted by such horror and who tried to save someone's life. At times, many of us forget just how challenging such situations can be and the trauma that can be felt by the people who experience them. That is one of the reasons why I appealed for people not to share the video. We talked before about the trauma that is inflicted on victims when there are videos of car accidents and other violence that is seen on our streets. I appeal for people not to share those images, because the family and, especially, the victim deserve privacy and dignity and because the trauma that they will inflict on people who were at the scene is immeasurable.

Mr McGlone: I could not agree more, Minister. However, such horrific incidents can heighten fear and undermine community cohesion. We have already seen efforts to capitalise on that fear from some who are not even indigenous to this country. What measures and engagement have you had with the Chief Constable and your Department to support community safety, assist the ongoing investigation and reassure residents, including many people who have come here to work and contribute positively to this society, who are all deeply shaken by that event? I am sure that you, Minister, share in the uppermost thing that many of us want to see here, which is calm in light of that awful and distressing situation.

Mrs Long: It is vital that people remain calm. What happened last night was obscene. It would be just as obscene for us to inflict more pain and hurt on either that community or other communities that are completely unrelated to the incident that happened last night. It is important that we do not head into that kind of destructive cycle. Of course, bad faith actors will try to weaponise every pain and fear that communities have.

I understand entirely why people are frightened by what they saw last night. I found it disturbing and frightening, and I cannot say enough that I am not dismissive of the fear that they feel, but we have to draw a line between feeling fearful or wanting reassurance that you will be safe and seeking to inflame tension, weaponise that fear, bring more harm to communities and create more victims.

An investigation is ongoing. It is important that anyone with information contacts the PSNI. I spoke with the Chief Constable this morning, and, all being well, I will be at a press conference with the Chief Constable, the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and others as the afternoon progresses to reinforce the need for us to ensure that every person in our community, irrespective of the colour of their skin, their language, their religion or all those issues, is safe. That was brought home to me this afternoon when I left the Chamber and spoke to a young woman who is doing work experience here. She was shaking and sobbing in fear that she would be associated with what she had seen last night and in shame that it had happened. Let us not forget that, when somebody does something wrong, they are accountable for it. Let us therefore work with the police and hold the individual who is responsible to account and not weaponise the incident against a whole community. That would be a travesty of justice.

Mrs Long: Schools already have disciplinary policies in place, not all of which, as things stand, require every incident to be referred to the PSNI. As I made clear in the Chamber earlier and will no doubt make clear again in the days to come, this is not about allowing people under the age of 14 not to be held accountable for their actions. It is important that young people be held accountable for them, particularly if those actions involve intimidation or sexual intent. There are public protection and public safety elements that need to be dealt with. I do not believe, however, that a criminal response is always the right one, particularly in the case of younger children. It is therefore important that we hold children to account in an age-appropriate way, with the right support, so that they can desist from their offending, understand the seriousness of their actions and, hopefully, put them behind them and move on to live productive and constructive lives, which is what we all want for our young people.

Mr Chambers: Does the Minister agree that her response may do little for teachers' sense of safety or their general morale?

Mrs Long: Many teachers have given their support to the measures, so it is not the case that this is about the Department of Justice versus teachers, as the Member suggests. Many of those who are highly specialised in dealing with young people recognise that confronting a young person with their actions and the consequences of those actions is often much more effective than imposing penalties. It is important that we listen carefully to what those who work with young people and have experience of achieving desistance have to say on the matter. They have, for example, spent years working in the youth justice system to ensure that young people are safe and that they do not go on to create more victims.

As I said, there will still be accountability. I believe that that accountability will be proportionate and appropriate. As I said before lunchtime to your now former colleague the Member for Upper Bann, we will not implement the provisions in the legislation until such times as we have in place a robust mechanism for accountability.

Mrs Long: First, we clearly have an issue in that particular circumstance, in that a violent individual committed a very violent crime against another person. Far be it from me to diminish the seriousness of that incident, but do we have a problem with violence in this society? I think that the Member knows the answer to that as well as I do. We do have a problem with violence in this society. We have a problem with violence against women and girls. We have high levels of violence against the person. That is why the Department of Justice introduces measures and makes interventions to deal with such matters. Yes, I do think that we have a problem. We have a problem with violence, and we will have to address that across the board, irrespective of the perpetrator or the victim.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, what would you say to genuine people — most people are genuine — who have serious concerns that are sometimes not taken on board? We can see from social media that people are organising rallies, although some of that information may not be true. What do you say to genuine people who are fearful? There are towns in Northern Ireland that one cannot walk through at night. I am a man, and I would not do it, so a woman is not going to. What do you say to people who have concerns?

Mrs Long: There are a couple of things that I will say. First, when it comes to rallies, as Members will know, I am not a great believer in bringing large groups of people on to the streets when temperatures are inflamed and emotions are running high. I do not think that that has ever in Northern Ireland's history led to productive outcomes, either for the communities involved or for others. I said earlier that I found the images terrifying and horrific to watch, so I understand why the people whom you talk about who have genuine concerns would be fearful. I ask them to cooperate with the police investigation. Do not distract the police from their investigation by going on to the streets and drawing out police resources. Let the police focus their resources on investigating and prosecuting that crime. Let us see the person responsible for it being held accountable before the law and given a sentence that is proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. The best reassurance that we can give every community is that, if someone is attacked, irrespective of who they are or what they stand for, the perpetrator will be held accountable. That is the best assurance that we can give to anyone in our community today. I hope that the Member will join me in appealing for calm so that the police can do their job without distractions or interference.

Mrs Long: I am pleased to announce that the victims and witnesses Bill was given authority to move forward by the Executive last week and is now with the Speaker's Office, which will do the normal due diligence on it in the hope that it can be introduced in time for the Committee to publish a call for evidence ahead of the summer.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for the response. What will happen to the establishment of a commissioner for victims and witnesses of crime if the Bill is not passed in the mandate?

Mrs Long: It will create something of an anomaly if we do not get the Bill through in the mandate, given that the current commissioner's term is due to end at the point at which a new statutory commissioner would come into being. That will create a challenge for the Department to manage. However, I am confident that, with goodwill and concerted effort, which I have had so far from the Justice Committee on the other Bills that have been brought to it, we can get it through by the end of the mandate. It is a relatively small Bill. I say that, recognising that Members are aware of my proclivities and those of the Chair of the Justice Committee when it comes to amendments. The victims and witnesses Bill is fairly tightly circumscribed and, hopefully, reasonably focused. It should be able to pass without overly long scrutiny.

Mrs Long: I very much do. I am not sure when I last heard any of the individuals whom the Member mentioned say anything about Northern Ireland. Anything that they have had to say about the UK of late has not been particularly good either. It is the people in north Belfast, and in Northern Ireland more generally, whom I care about. We live in this society, and we recognise how much we have had to overcome in the past to end routine violence and abuse, some of which was also horrific and blood-curdling but perhaps not captured on video. I appeal to people in Northern Ireland to listen to people here who have their interests at heart. Be calm; continue to work with the police and support them in pursuing their investigation; and do not be drawn in by bad faith actors who simply want to weaponise this situation to drive forward an agenda that is in no one's interest in Northern Ireland.

Mr Carroll: Thanks for that answer, Minister. As you said earlier, it is understandable that people in north Belfast are fearful, given the horrific events. You will be aware that protests are planned across Belfast, if not across the North, this evening. We do not know how they will develop, if at all, but you mentioned fears in our migrant community and among people of colour that the protests may turn nasty and violent. What is your message to people who are fearful of how the protests may turn out?

Mrs Long: I encourage anyone who is fearful for their safety to contact the police immediately. The police will do all in their power to respond.

I appeal to people who are upset, angry and fearful about what happened last night to bear in mind that, if the police are distracted from the work that they need to do to investigate that incident by unrest on the streets or other crimes being committed, they will have less resource to put to that investigation.

I appeal to people of good intent not to stretch the police resource, not to force themselves into conflict with the police, and not to do harm to their neighbourhood or their neighbours. Ultimately, there is nothing to be gained from terrorising people who had nothing to do with the incident last night. I have heard already today from numerous people who are concerned about their family, their friends or their work colleagues, and from people who are fearful that, because of the colour of their skin, they will not be safe on public transport or while going about their ordinary daily lives. That is not acceptable. I remember the days when somebody with an accent such as mine drew strange looks in airports. It was not a pleasant experience to be held accountable simply because you shared an accent with somebody who would do harm. We do not want to inflict that kind of misery on any other group of people.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Justice.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to last night's horrific incident in north Belfast, I have sought your permission to step out of the ongoing Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill to participate in a media briefing at 4.00 pm. I do not intend any discourtesy to the House or to Members, but these are very particular circumstances, and it is important that I attend.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that, Minister. We fully understand the circumstances that you are in. It is the right thing to do, so we support you. No doubt your officials will take notes and keep you informed in any event, so it is not a discourtesy.

Mr Speaker: Before I call Nuala McAllister to finish her contribution, the Business Committee reminds all Members to be as succinct as possible as we wade through all the amendments. I commend the House: Members are doing an excellent piece of work in scrutinising the Bill. However, we should be as succinct as possible. That is not aimed solely at you, Miss McAllister.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was at that Business Committee meeting, but I do not recall telling myself to be as succinct as possible, so, if you do not mind, I will stick to my speech.

I was bringing my remarks to a close on amendment Nos 68, 69 and 127 from the Justice Minister.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. As you were drawing your remarks to a close before the break, I indicated that there were a couple of things that I wanted to put on record. Mr Burrows said that he had to try on a number of occasions to get clarity on the issues before us. I set out those issues in my opening remarks, but, for clarity, if we go down the route of the amendments, we can circumscribe the dates in regulation. I explained that at the beginning of the debate. That would vary somewhat from the situation in England and Wales: the furthest date that they can go back is 2012. That date was chosen on the basis of when their code of conduct became live. I think that a similar date for the PSNI is 2016. That can be dealt with by regulation.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Minister. As I said in my remarks, further regulations will come forward on this issue. It will not be finished in its entirety in primary legislation. We look forward to those regulations.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. That will be critical. You would not want to test somebody on a standard that they were not aware of at the time of the activity. If that could be enshrined in regulations, that would be really important. A fairness needs to be added to that process.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his remarks. I agree. I hope that, with that clarification, we will get the DUP on board and it will support the Minister's amendments as well.

As I was finishing up before the break, I was going to touch on the issue of serious misconduct.

That is where a lot of the cases come up, if an officer has already retired or resigned or perhaps has retired or resigned during misconduct proceedings and subsequently cannot be added to any advisory or barred list, should one exist. That is a gap that we are trying to close, but it is important to touch on the issue of serious misconduct.

One particular issue is the abuse of position for sexual purposes. Everyone in the Chamber will agree that that is serious. The ombudsman published a review earlier this year with cases from 2018 to 2024. Since that review was published, 20 more cases have come forward, with the youngest victim being 14 years old. That is serious misconduct. What if those officers had left the police in just the last few years — in the last eight or 12 months? What if they had left the police just upon the publication of that review? I am not saying that that is the case, but we have to deal with all the circumstances that could arise.

Currently, there is no criminal offence of abuse of position for sexual purposes, and the threshold for misconduct in public office is high. We are not seeking to change that today; that would require consultation. However, it is important that, where there is a mechanism to hold officers to account, that is established. I understand that there are six officers awaiting proceedings and that others were dismissed or convicted on other criminal grounds during the review period.

The Angiolini inquiry, the Langdale report and Operation RORIC have been mentioned. For those of you who do not sit on the Policing Board, RORIC was established following the likes of the Angiolini inquiry to look at historical investigations. It related to 134 officers from 2012 to 2022. The initial investigation of those officers meant that there was a delay in allegations reaching a disciplinary hearing before officers resigned or retired. It was right that there was a review in the PSNI of those cases. Given what has hit the media in the past six or nine months about the current case that is sitting with the Police Ombudsman, it is even more pertinent that that issue is dealt with and that the gap on accountability is closed. Of course, we have asked the police numerous times at the Policing Board whether they would support the amendments put forward by the Justice Minister and those in my name, and they support them, because they want a police service that has the support and confidence of the public. That is important.

Before I go on to my amendments, I will recap on the mechanics of how it works in England and Wales and the precedent that that sets for Northern Ireland. Condition A, which we spoke about, is when a person leaves after an allegation comes to the appropriate authorities. That is one mechanism to deal with that. Condition B is when a person leaves before the allegation surfaces. The period will be specified in regulations, and the Minister has clarified that today. Of course, there is condition C, where the issues are so serious that the Police Ombudsman must take into account the three criteria that are laid down. It is important to acknowledge the 12-month period in England and Wales. Working with the Department of Justice and, no doubt, the Committee, we will ensure what the regulations will look like moving forward. Currently, officers remain free to leave. In England and Wales, the legislation and proceedings that allow the barred list, the advisory list and the misconduct proceedings do not prevent an officer from retiring or resigning. It is important to highlight that.

Following the legislation in England and Wales, one case in particular came to light. An officer in Cheshire was investigated for abuse of position for sexual purposes. That officer was able to face an accelerated misconduct hearing. He had resigned, but he was able to be barred and added to the barred list. Therefore, it is a tool that has had effective operation and use in England and Wales.

I move now to the amendments in my name — amendment Nos 76 and 77. What do the amendments do? They would allow the Police Ombudsman to send a fast-track report to the appropriate authority before investigation is fully complete, even when criminal proceedings on the same matter are ongoing, with insight and clarification from the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) that it would not prejudice criminal proceedings, which is important.

I want to provide a bit of context on that. We often see cases in the Office of the Police Ombudsman — I refer again to the Katie Simpson case — that involve multiple officers, expand over a few months and take years to comply. There are many such cases that involve many officers, the majority of whom will not have any misconduct charges and will not have behaved inappropriately, but there have been cases that were large in volume, with more than one officer, but where incontrovertible evidence was found against one officer in particular. That is evidence that simply cannot be disputed. It is in writing, in body-worn footage or on other video camera footage: it is evidence that cannot be disputed. Why, therefore, should we have to wait years with that officer suspended on full pay? That happens: officers have been suspended for five years on full pay awaiting criminal outcomes so that they can be dealt with in misconduct proceedings. Why should the public purse pay for that five-year suspension when the matter could be dealt with through the fast-track process?

I have not come to this on my own. The amendments are in my name, but we have worked on the issue on the Policing Board, and the Criminal Justice Inspection has said that that power needs to be within PONI as it is within the PSNI. It is also one of the 23 recommendations in the ombudsman's statutory five-year review, and the Police Service has said that it would support it. The Police Service said that it would support it because it has that power. If it was an investigation that was initiated in the PSNI, it has that fast-track power, so there is a massive gap there in PONI not having that power. A member of the public or perhaps a victim refers a case to the Police Ombudsman; yet that victim has to wait five or six years. That is not acceptable. If it was an investigation within the Police Service, it can fast-track it to a misconduct hearing.

My amendments are not about a stick with which to beat the PSNI. As I have said, the overwhelming majority of PSNI officers act in good faith and carry out their duties appropriately. For those who do not, however, accountability mechanisms must be available.

It is important that we commence the powers as soon as is practicable but in the right way so that the regulations are right and are made in conjunction with not just the Department of Justice but all the authorities that can use them. I give the Minister my support in looking at further regulations. I also say to the Minister that, if the amendments in my name require additional work, I am content to work with the Department of Justice, because I want to get it right so that we do not have to come back to the Chamber in the next mandate or beyond to fix them.

I say to any Member who worries that faster discipline means rougher justice that the opposite is true. Everything in the amendments is designed following reflection on other mechanisms in England and Wales and within the PSNI. They have victims at their heart, and the PSNI wants to be a service that has the confidence of all victims and the confidence of all of Northern Ireland.

This group of amendments is one reform in two halves. The Minister's amendments would make sure that an officer cannot escape by leaving; mine would make sure that an officer cannot evade accountability by waiting. Together, they say something simple and overdue, which is that officers and constables who carry out the role of an officer on the ground, those of senior rank or those in leadership deserve to be held to account like every officer in England and Wales. They also deserve to be able to carry out that role with scrutiny in order to have the respect and confidence of the public.

The amendments would enhance the confidence of the public in the PSNI. In the end, it is not just about officers. It is about the 14-year-old who was abused by an officer. It is about Katie Simpson, who was failed by so many officers. It is about every victim who has long waited for the truth. It is about the officers who carry out their duties and are ashamed of those who do so in bad faith.

Mr Burrows: I thank Miss McAllister for that insightful piece of evidence.

First, let me say this: the Police Service of Northern Ireland has made a mess of misconduct down the years. I declare an interest in that I was in the PSNI and was the appropriate authority and decision-maker to determine whether a case was taken against someone. It is important to set this in context. What often happened in the PSNI was that good officers were targeted while the bad, corrupt officer got away with things. When I first went into the professional standards department (PSD), I saw a whiteboard on which was listed the officers who were suspended. There were officers who were suspended for up to eight years on full pay — eight years at a cost of, maybe, £500,000 in pay — at the end of which there was no case. It is important that we focus on and deal with this properly, because the public deserve accountability, but those who are on the front line making quick decisions deserve fairness.

Having put that context out there — it is about how we can have a swift and fair misconduct system — I will look at the amendments in this group. The first one is about taking a misconduct case after someone retires or resigns from the PSNI. In 2019, when I was the appropriate authority, I supported such a proposal. I put a paper up to the then Chief Constable, Simon Byrne, calling for that power, because that happens in England and Wales. There have been officers — I know them — who were dismissed from the PSNI or left while facing misconduct allegations. Those officers, because no case was taken against them, had no criminal record or record of misconduct and were able to take other jobs, while the victim or complainant was unable to get any justice.

I support, in principle, the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Police Ombudsman's being able to bring back an officer who has retired or left, to put them in front of a misconduct hearing and to have a case heard against them. It is worth saying that, in reality, when that happens in England and Wales, the ex-officer rarely turns up, so the case is heard in absentia, and there is no meaningful sanction, because they have already left. However, the victim gets, at least, a declaration that that person did x or y. I am aware of a case in England in which someone was accused of sexually grooming females. A criminal case could not be proven, but the officer was at least brought in front of a hearing, the victims were able to give their testimony and there was a finding of guilt. That is important. I support it in principle.

I am concerned — I make no apology for it — about enabling the ombudsman to take a case against someone who has retired. Under our current legislation on police misconduct, it is only the professional standards department that can authorise an officer to be brought before a misconduct hearing. The ombudsman can recommend that that take place, but the decision is made by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. To be clear, this does not allow the ombudsman to take a case against a former officer. It allows the ombudsman, where they have investigated an officer, to provide an early report to the appropriate authority. It does not extend the ombudsman's powers.

Mr Burrows: Are we talking about amendment No 68 or the amendment about special case hearings?

Mrs Long: Special case hearings.

Mr Burrows: I am talking about amendment No 68 — taking a case against someone who has left the PSNI. [Inaudible.]

Mr Burrows: Right. I will look into that again.

My second point — I will labour it — is that I am prepared to support this only on the basis of a clear assurance that the power to bring before a misconduct hearing an officer who has retired does not extend to the period of the Troubles. That is a contested space in which there is, whether we like it or not, a lack of confidence in the objectivity and impartiality of the Police Ombudsman. This cannot become another extension of legacy.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member's taking an intervention. The Minister has made it clear that the ombudsman will not take a decision on whether a misconduct hearing will happen: that will still be for the Chief Constable. The ombudsman can certainly make a recommendation, but, as is the case currently, the Chief Constable will decide whether to accept that recommendation and what to do with it.

I am not ruling out there being a cut-off date. I do not know what will happen in the regulations, so, on that basis, we will support the amendment. Why, though, would the Member want to stop a misconduct hearing for any officer, given that there are other contested spaces and other issues at play around, in particular, historical child abuse and historical institutional abuse, in which police officers are implicated in a cover-up?

Mr Burrows: It is important because we are talking about legislation, so let us separate a couple of issues. Where there is sufficient evidence to bring a criminal case against a police officer, that is unaffected by the amendment, because it is a completely separate matter. Police officers should be treated the same as anyone else. Any police officer who commits a crime should be treated like any other member of the public, except that they should get an exemplary sentence, because they have abused their uniform. I have no difficulty with saying that right is right and wrong is wrong.

The issue here is that it would be a misconduct matter, and that can be open to the ombudsman's interpretation, because the ombudsman has created an entire class of wrongdoing called "collusive behaviour". I therefore need to get reassurance that I will not open up another front for retired police officers —

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will in one second. I know a police officer, whom I spoke to only yesterday, who has 40-odd years' service and who served during the Troubles. If someone were to say, "Forty years ago, I think, you were involved in collusive behaviour", and the PPS said, "There's nothing to see here" but the ombudsman said, "I want to see you brought back in front of a hearing", the Chief Constable would feel under pressure for that to happen. I just want to make sure that that cannot happen. We cannot have another front in the legacy battle.

I will take the intervention.

Miss McAllister: The Minister has outlined the regulations and mentioned looking at the specified time frames in them. It is important that we work together. The regulations will be forthcoming to the Justice Committee and then to the Assembly.

It is important to note that, in England and Wales, it is the responsibility of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). Who should make the recommendation instead of the ombudsman? There is no other body. I appreciate that the Member is well within his rights to say that he does not have faith in the ombudsman's office, but who else will do it? The current chief executive of the ombudsman's office is doing an excellent job, specifically on previous misconduct cases concerning abuse of position for sexual purposes. We all know the background of the current chief executive, but he is doing an excellent job. Given that it is the IOPC in England and Wales, if it is not to be the Office of the Police Ombudsman, it is important to ask who it should be, because it needs to be done. The gap needs to be closed.

Mr Burrows: We are not in a situation like that in England and Wales. My word, legacy has become an industry in itself here, and, by the way, it is only a small group of solicitors and barristers who really seem to profit from it.

It is a fair point that what is designed to deal with police misconduct and the ability to bring back an officer in order to deal with an allegation after they have retired does should become another vehicle for legacy. We have activism in this country. When the Office of the Police Ombudsman was first established almost 30 years ago, there was no suggestion that it would even look at legacy cases from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The thought was that the Police Ombudsman would check police conduct today. That activism opened up the ability of the ombudsman to look into cases from 30 years before the ombudsman's office was conceived.

It is important. The next time that the Minister is on her feet, I ask that she make it clear that the regulations will absolutely contain some timeline that means that we do not go back 30 years or 40 years. To do so would be preposterous. Given that what we are dealing with here is not crime but misconduct, it would be anathema to bring someone in front of a panel for a misconduct hearing 40 years after an alleged incident. I just want to get that clarified.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Burrows: I would love to, yes.

Miss McAllister: The Member highlighted an important point about misconduct not being a crime. I respect the fact that he was talking about legacy cases, but we have to be careful, as there will be instances in which crimes and misconduct have both been committed. Both those issues must be looked at. It is important to highlight the fact that there could be instances in which there is also crime, and we cannot wait in those cases. As the Member well knows, the threshold for criminal conduct will be higher, whereas the threshold for professional misconduct at a hearing is lower. They should be brought not on a par with each other but at a level where it is not necessary to wait until the criminal case is over. It is important that I highlight that to the Member. I know that he was talking about legacy, but it is a really important issue.

Mr Burrows: Yes. I will clarify. For any criminal case, the standard of proof is that it must be beyond reasonable doubt — the standard is way up high — whereas, for a misconduct case, it is beyond the balance of probabilities, which could be 50% plus one or even 50·1%. There is a different standard. In England, most cases in which an officer is brought back for a hearing after they have retired are cases where there has not been a crime, because then victims can get accountability. That has been going on for some time in England, and we should have implemented it some time ago. I suggest that we should use our existing powers more when an officer is convicted of a crime. The Policing Board has full forfeiture powers over pensions, although that power is rarely used. A couple of years ago, a police officer was convicted of perverting the course of justice in relation to the case of an innocent man who was beaten to death by a loyalist mob in Portadown. The person who stood up in front of the camera and said that that officer's pension should be taken away was me — the person who is often accused of seeing things only from the police's point of view.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He has been generous in that respect.

First, forfeiture powers are being used. I have to sign them off and have been doing so increasingly over the past months. I believe that that power should be used. The other thing to say is that we are trying to replicate what happens in England and Wales. The legislation there sets out that the powers go back to 2012, because that is when the police code of conduct in England and Wales was established in statute. The comparable date here would be 2016. There is therefore a strong argument that we would have it go back to 2016. The alternative is that we could say in the regulations, for example, "anything up to 10 years". There are different ways to do it. One of the reasons that it is not in the legislation is that we want to be able to have that conversation with the Policing Board, the police, the Police Federation and the Justice Committee to ensure that the regulations reflect our intent. Our intent is absolutely not to turn this into another vehicle for legacy; that is not what we want to do or will do with the regulations.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for that. It has been a worthy exchange that has really fleshed the issue out. We have heard it now: it will be recorded in Hansard, and we know the case of Pepper v Hart and all those things. The Minister has indicated that we are talking about 2012 or 2016, so we certainly are not talking about the 1980s, the 1990s or the 1970s. That gives me the reassurance that I need. I want to support this and see the bad cop brought back and the victim given justice, because there is no more despicable sight than a bent cop who has misused their authority. They damage everybody who has gone out to try to do their job with distinction and honour.

I will move on to amendment No 69, which will introduce the barred list. I am glad to see it. I called for it some time ago. I can tell of a case in which a second officer — I will not mention their name — was dismissed from the PSNI. Because we do not have the barred list, which I asked for in 2019, that police officer, despite having been dismissed — there was a sexual element to it — turned up suddenly in Border Force. What happened when they were enforcing the law in Border Force? They were the subject of an allegation that was very similar to what happened in the PSNI. That is a gaping loophole that should never have been allowed. I therefore absolutely support having a barred list that clearly states who is not fit to be a police officer in Northern Ireland. If they are not fit to be a police officer here, they are not fit to be a police officer in the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales or in any other law enforcement body.

We need to remember that there is a threat in Northern Ireland that makes our policing distinct, and we should ensure, through the regulations that follow, that nothing would jeopardise the security of a police officer or an ex-police officer.

Perhaps the Minister will give me some assurance on that.

Mrs Long: I am happy to do so. As you know, at one stage, there were recommendations that police misconduct hearings would be held in public. That is not something that I believe that we are ready for in Northern Ireland. The recommendations related to senior officers, but I still believe that it is a step too far, given the attendant risks of doing the job at this point in time. It is important that there is accountability and that that is visible to the public, but I do not think that it is necessary for the hearings to be held in public or for names to be disclosed more widely, other than where there is a genuine public protection risk.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for that. I am glad to hear that. That will reassure a lot of police officers. I support the introduction of the barred list. It is vital that that happens.

I support amendment Nos 76 and 77. It is worth saying that the power to take a fast-track case, as it is colloquially known in the police misconduct world — a sad world when you are in it — and what we describe as a "special case hearing" is vital. In short, it used to be that if someone was being criminally investigated, the police professional standards department could not take a disciplinary case. There could have been a good reason for that, but, sometimes, it was simply daft, because there was clear evidence that someone was not suitable to be a police officer and would very easily be dismissed in a misconduct hearing, but you had a very long criminal case to take. I am glad that the loophole has been closed. The power to do that was not extended to the ombudsman, and now it will be.

I know of a case that was recently brought to court, which a senior member of staff from the ombudsman's office briefed me on seven years ago, in 2019. When they briefed me, there was sufficient evidence in the file that I was given, including screenshots and text messages, for me to dismiss that officer just like that. That was seven years ago. However, there was a legal gap, which meant that the officer had to stay in service, suspended, simply because we did not have the legal power. Had the Police Service of Northern Ireland and not the ombudsman been investigating the case, we would have been able to dismiss the officer just like that because of incontrovertible evidence.

I welcome the closing of the loophole. It will allow bad cops to be dealt with quicker and it will be cheaper. Bear in mind that when an officer is at home on full pay for seven years, their pension increments are also growing. I know of police officers who have been off work for so long that they have hit the point at which they can retire with a full pension. Once you hit 60, you cannot stop someone from retiring, and they sail into the sunset. I know of one police officer who was suspended for seven years, and, by year 5, the police had lost track of him. They did not know where he was and thought that he was in another country, but the pay cheques kept flowing. It was astonishing.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He raises a valid point. This is not a reason for not doing it by the way, but there could be a danger that a raft of police officers who are guilty of misconduct will retire on the eve of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and not be touched. Then, you would have a raft of police officers who feel that they are not guilty and have not done anything wrong staying in the force and being caught by the law and investigated for it.

Mr Burrows: That is a good point. It is very complex. There are times when the Deputy Chief Constable can decline a resignation. It depends on an officer's level of service, their age and whether they are retiring with a full pension.

I will make another point, and then I will summarise my position. One thing that you have to be aware of is that there is an irony in this, and it sounds like a bit of a contradiction. If you give the PSNI the power to take a case after someone has left the organisation, you will, in my view — it is not actually a problem if I can explain it logically — see more officers retire before an investigation is complete. Let me give you an example. This is where the public commentary on this is not always informed. I will give you a practical example. Someone came to me with a police officer who was alleged to have committed a criminal offence. The investigation was going to take about three years, but it was a serious investigation. I was confident that we would get a case in the end, but I had nothing in the meantime. If that officer offers to resign and you take their resignation, you save yourself three years' pay. Take an inspector who earns £55,000 or £60,000 per year: that is £200,000 plus pension contributions. It may be that, now that the Police Service can still take a case after the person has retired, you are more likely to say, "I am going to bite your hand off. Leave our organisation. I am going to stop paying you today. When we finish our investigation, if need be we will bring you back". Sometimes, when the Police Service allows someone to resign during an investigation, it is because they are saving £50,000, £60,000, £70,000, £80,000 or £90,000 a year. I know of a superintendent who earned £80,000 a year, and he was suspended for five years, which cost £400,000. There is sometimes a cost reason for accepting a resignation. It is now easier to do this because we are going to be able to bring them back after they retire, and you have stopped the public purse taking a hit.

I will summarise my position and our party's position. On the basis that I have a red-line caveat, which is that I am concerned about opening a fresh front for legacy cases. Therefore, the only reason that I am supporting the amendment to introduce disciplinary proceedings against former officers is because of the clear understanding that I have from the Minister that the regulations will specify a time limit that will not go back as far as the Troubles.

On amendment No 69, I fully support a police barring list that covers every UK law enforcement agency and details every police officer or retired police officer who is not fit to hold a role in law enforcement. The caveat is protection for their security, given that they have served in Northern Ireland. I support giving the Police Ombudsman the power to bring a case before criminal matters are concluded, on the basis that those powers work very well for the PSNI, and it allows police misconduct to be dealt with swiftly.

There is no place for bad cops. I will say two things, though. We must guard against jumping on good officers when a clip appears on social media. They are not the officers who we should be worried about; it is the officers who are predatory and corrupt that we should worry about. It is not about the officers who are out trying to arrest someone at 3.00 am, with the Monday morning quarterback asking questions about how they exercised their powers. The good cops must be protected. The second thing — I say this to every police officer in our land — is that there is a culture that emerged in the PSNI — I watched it at first hand — where senior police officers, particularly those above the rank of superintendent, were not held to account in the same way as the more junior officers of constable and sergeant. That created a huge fairness issue, and I will always be watching to see that our senior police officers are held to account in the same way as the rank-and-file police officers.

With those caveats in place, I am glad to support the amendments. They tighten up some loopholes, and, if it is done right, we can have a swift, fair and accountable misconduct system for the PSNI.

Mrs Dillon: I am going to shock the House by agreeing with much of what Jon has said, which is a bit scary.

This is really important. I am glad that the amendments have been tabled, because they are important for the PSNI and for us as elected representatives, but, mostly, they are important for the community to have confidence in the PSNI. It is important for us to support the amendments today. They have been asked for; the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman's office have been crying out for changes to the legislation.

I want to quickly address one point that Jon made about the accruing of pensions. I agree with him on that. That seems entirely and wholly wrong. It is not dealt with in this legislation, but it needs to be looked at in the future. If you are working in a factory and you hit one of your co-workers, you will lose your private pension. If you are dismissed for gross misconduct, you lose your private pension. Why are police officers' pensions protected when the officers have been dismissed for some really serious offences? That should not be the case, but that is a conversation for another day. I agree with Jon that that needs to be addressed at a later point.

As I have said, the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman's office have, for quite a significant period, been crying out for changes to legislation to close the gaps. I have raised some of those issues over a number of years at the Policing Board and in the Chamber. The PSNI wants to be able to address disciplinary issues, and we, as an Assembly and a legislature, must support the PSNI to put in place effective disciplinary procedures in order to close the gaps and ensure that we are not allowing officers, some of whom have committed the most egregious crimes, many against women and girls, to benefit. At this point, it is important to note that, when I last asked, I was told that over 90% of the cases in PSD were of a sexual nature or involved domestic abuse. Those are not officers who are being brought in on a Monday morning because a minor incident happened over the weekend. It is really serious abuse, some of which is carried out against their co-workers: other police officers and female police officers. We know that there are cases in which officers have been repositioned when an allegation has been made against them and that female officer has had to work with them. They may have been repositioned to another station but, within a couple of months, are back in the station where that female officer works. That is an entirely unacceptable situation for anybody to be put in. It is an issue of public confidence.

I do not want to repeat what other Members have said, so I will be more succinct than most. The Katie Simpson case has already been mentioned. That is a well-documented case that led to many recommendations. It was a horrendous thing that happened to Katie and her family, and no words in this place can ever offer enough condolences. However, Katie left a legacy of, hopefully, protecting women and girls in the future and a legacy of ensuring that, when police officers respond to a case, they do not assume that they know what happened and that, when they make a wrong call, they are held accountable for that. That is really important. A number of other reviews have led to really good recommendations, and we need to see all of those implemented.

John Beggs KC presented to the Policing Board, and some of the things that he told us were really interesting and have fed into some of the amendments. There is much, much more to be done when it comes to investigations; those carried out by the Police Ombudsman's office and by PSD. We need to ensure that PSD has all the tools that it requires to deal with police officers who are subject to serious allegations and have committed serious crimes against others, whether it is people whom they have power over or people in their own homes. Whoever it is, they need to be held accountable. I agree that there are many good officers. Do you know what the good officers want? They want to make sure that the bad officers are gone. They want them out. They do not want them there.

On that basis, I appeal to the DUP to support the amendments today. We are not really on different pages. We all have great sympathy for the position that the PSNI is in when trying to deal with some of the serious misconduct. We cannot allow that to go on. We should show a united front in supporting the good officers and ensuring that the officers who should not be in the PSNI and should not have power over anybody — those who do not deserve to have power over a butterfly never mind over our entire community — are out of the service and are not able, as Jon said, to take up other positions of power in other services, whether on other parts of this island, across these islands or anywhere for that matter.

If we want to deal with that, we need to support the amendments. Therefore, I appeal to everybody to do that. There are things that will absolutely need to be dealt with in regulations. We will see what comes forward in those regulations and whether they fulfil the expectations of the House. However, it is important that we support the amendments today. I welcome the amendments from the Minister and Nuala McAllister.

A number of other issues would need to be addressed in future legislation, particularly around ill-health retirement, injury on duty and the ability of the Police Ombudsman's office to compel former officers to cooperate with investigations. Those are for another day, however. They are separate issues. I am asking Members to support the amendments that are before us, and that we show a united front in support of officers who are trying to do the right thing every day.

Mr Kingston: I rise as a DUP member of the Justice Committee to comment on the group 4 amendments. Most of the debate has been about amendment No 68 on disciplinary proceedings concerning former police officers. As the Committee Chair mentioned earlier, the Justice Committee did not receive the wording in good time, so could not achieve an agreed Committee position. As DUP members, we do, of course, support police accountability and arrangements for that through the Policing Board and the Police Ombudsman's office. However, as you have heard, we are also very mindful of the incredibly difficult circumstances in which PSNI and, previously, RUC officers served during the Troubles and the ongoing level of threat that officers have to live with today. Let us not forget that. I speak as the relative of two serving police officers who were murdered by the IRA during the Troubles.

We are concerned that amendment No 68, relating to disciplinary proceedings against former police officers, would be out of keeping with arrangements for other public-sector staff. As highlighted by the Ulster Unionist Member for North Antrim, the previous Police Ombudsman was adjudged by a High Court judge to have exceeded her powers in making claims of so-called "collusive behaviour" in Troubles incidents. We are concerned that powers like those could be used as an alternative means by which to conduct inquiries into police officer conduct during the difficult circumstances of the Troubles.

Briefly, on amendment No 69 and amendment No 127, which inserts schedule 5 on the police barred list and police advisory list, again, as the Chair mentioned, the wording did not come to the Committee in sufficient time to enable members to reach an agreed position. However, the DUP welcomes the introduction of the police barred list and police advisory list, and alignment with such lists elsewhere in the UK. We also support that those regulations would apply to other relevant statutory agencies, such as the international airport constabulary, the harbour police and support staff.

In closing, we are content to support amendment Nos 76, 77 and 131.

Mr Bradley: Before I speak to the amendments in group 4, I pay tribute to the Alliance Member, who is not in her place, for her sterling work and dedication throughout the Katie Simpson murder investigation. She deserves praise for that.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I wish to speak to the group of amendments and, at the outset, express thanks to the Chairman, Paul Frew, my colleague Brian Kingston, fellow Committee members and the Committee staff for their work in bringing the Justice Bill to what is now the halfway stage. I would also like to express thanks to the Minister for her work in achieving that.

The amendments deal primarily with police discipline, police accountability, the powers of the Police Ombudsman and the establishment of a police barred list and police advisory list. I acknowledge that PSNI officers continue to undertake their role in difficult times. We must not lose sight of that.

Taken together, the amendments represent some of the most significant reforms to police accountability arrangements that the Assembly has considered for many years. We acknowledge that some of the reforms did not come before the Committee. They will therefore require further scrutiny and discussion. Hopefully, the Committee Chairman and the Minister of Justice will deal with that issue throughout the summer months.

The powers for the Police Ombudsman and the establishment of a police barred list and a police advisory list are very good. Taken together, they represent some of the most significant reforms to police accountability that the Assembly has considered. I am sorry for repeating myself. They seek to address legitimate concerns that victims, oversight bodies and the wider public have raised about the ability of officers to evade scrutiny through resignation or retirement, as well as concerns about former officers.

Members of the Justice Committee have repeatedly stressed that confidence in the justice system depends not only on effective policing but on accountability, transparency and public trust. The public must have confidence that allegations of serious misconduct will be properly investigated and, where necessary, acted on. Equally, police officers are entitled to fair procedures and to protection from arbitrary or disproportionate action. It is therefore important that we assess the amendments through the lens of balance. Do they strengthen accountability? Do they protect the public interest? Do they maintain procedural fairness? Are they practical and proportionate?

I will begin with amendment No 68, which concerns disciplinary proceedings against former police officers. Historically, one of the most persistent criticisms of police disciplinary systems throughout these islands has been that officers can retire or resign before proceedings are completed. In many instances, that has left serious allegations unresolved and left victims and complainants feeling that justice has not been served. The amendment seeks to address that issue by allowing disciplinary proceedings to continue in certain circumstances after an officer has ceased to serve. The principle behind that is understandable. The public rightly expect that accountability should not simply disappear when an individual leaves the organisation. Where there are allegations of serious misconduct, particularly misconduct that would have led to dismissal had the officer remained in service, there is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that the matter can be examined.

The amendment introduces several conditions that must be satisfied before proceedings can continue. Importantly, where allegations emerge after an officer has left the service and are outside the normal period, proceedings may continue only where the Police Ombudsman considers such action to be reasonable and proportionate. I welcome that safeguard. It introduces an independent assessment and requires consideration of three important factors: the seriousness of the alleged misconduct; the impact on public confidence in policing; and the wider public interest. Those tests are important, because they recognise that not every historical complaint should automatically trigger disciplinary proceedings years after an officer has left service. There must be proportionality. There must be a clear public interest. There must be a recognition that memories fade, that evidence becomes more difficult to obtain and that fairness applies to respondents as well as complainants. That balance is reflected in the amendment, so it should be welcomed. I also encourage the Minister to ensure, however, that any regulations developed under the provisions provide clarity about timescales and evidential thresholds. Uncertainty benefits nobody. Victims deserve clarity. Former officers deserve clarity. The public deserve clarity. Without clear guidance, however, there is a risk that expectations will be raised that cannot ultimately be fulfilled.

Amendment No 69 and the substantial provisions in proposed new schedule 5 under amendment No 127 will create a police barred list and a police advisory list. In many respects, they are among the most significant reforms in the Bill. The purpose is straightforward: an individual who has been dismissed for serious misconduct, or who would have been dismissed had they remained in service, should not simply move elsewhere within policing or law enforcement without that history being known. That is a principle that most Members will find difficult to oppose.

The public rightly expect that those entrusted with significant powers, including powers of arrest, detention and investigation, meet the highest standards of integrity. When those standards are breached in a serious way, there must be consequences. The police barred list seeks to ensure precisely that by creating a formal mechanism to prevent individuals who have been dismissed for serious misconduct from obtaining employment elsewhere in policing or law enforcement. In practical terms, that closes a loophole that has existed for far too long. The barred list also extends beyond PSNI officers, covering police support staff, senior officers, airport police, harbour police and various categories of personnel who exercise law enforcement functions. Having that breadth is important.

Public confidence depends not on organisational labels but on standards. The standards expected of those exercising public authority should therefore apply consistently. The Justice Committee has long recognised the importance of public confidence in policing. Confidence is built not solely through operational success but through trust, accountability and demonstrating that misconduct has consequences. The police barred list therefore represents a potentially important step forward.

I caution, however, that safeguards are equally important. A decision that effectively prevents an individual from working in policing or law enforcement can have lifelong consequences. Such decisions must therefore be robust, transparent and capable of challenge. I note positively that the legislation provides mechanisms for removal from the barred list where dismissals are overturned or found to be unfair. That is essential. No accountability system can command confidence unless it contains effective safeguards against error. Justice requires both accountability and fairness; one cannot exist without the other.

The creation of a police advisory list is perhaps less well known, but it may be equally important. Unlike the barred list, the advisory list is for situations where allegations remain unresolved because an individual resigns or retires before proceedings have concluded. That addresses a long-standing concern. If an individual leaves during an investigation, future employers may be unaware that serious allegations exist. The advisory list seeks to ensure that the relevant information is available when future employment is considered. Again, I understand that principle. The public would rightly question a system that allows unresolved allegations simply to disappear. However, I also believe that careful implementation will be critical. Inclusion on an advisory list is not the same as a finding of misconduct. That distinction is extremely important. Natural justice requires that unresolved allegations are treated differently from proven misconduct. I therefore encourage the Department to ensure that appropriate safeguards, review mechanisms and data protection arrangements are in place. The objective is to have informed decision-making, not prejudgement. That distinction matters greatly.

I turn to amendment Nos 76 and 77, which relate to the Police Ombudsman. Our party has reservations about those and will seek clarification on them. The amendments provide the ombudsman with powers to submit reports to the appropriate authority before investigations or criminal proceedings have concluded where certain conditions are met. The intention behind the amendments is understandable, but we still need clarity. Where there is compelling evidence of gross misconduct and where it is considered to be in the public interest for an officer to cease serving without delay, there should be mechanisms available to address that situation.

Police confidence can be seriously damaged when officers who face extremely serious allegations remain in post for extended periods while processes continue. The amendments therefore seek to address that concern, but I still have reservations. One of the cornerstones of our justice system is due process. Criminal investigations and disciplinary investigations frequently overlap. The danger in creating mechanisms for accelerated disciplinary action is that they may unintentionally prejudice criminal proceedings or create perceptions of prejudgement. I note that the amendments contain a safeguard in that they require consideration where misconduct proceedings would prejudice criminal proceedings. That safeguard is welcome; nevertheless, I believe that careful consideration is required regarding the practical operation of those provisions. The Assembly must be satisfied that the pursuit of speed does not compromise fairness. Public confidence is enhanced when decisions are both swift and robust. The challenge lies in achieving both objectives simultaneously. Throughout scrutiny of justice legislation, a recurring theme emerges, which is that the public and victims expect accountability, but accountability must never be at the expense of expediency.

The justice system functions effectively when decisions are evidence-based, proportionate and fair. That principle should guide the implementation of every amendment before us. The amendments that deal with former officers acknowledge that accountability and the fact that it should not automatically end at retirement. The barred list recognises that serious misconduct should carry meaningful consequences. The advisory list recognises that unresolved allegations remain relevant to future employment decisions. The ombudsman amendments seek to strengthen the ability to respond to serious cases where public confidence may otherwise be undermined. While each of those objectives may be legitimate, the amendments raise serious concerns about their outworking. Each also requires careful implementation. The Assembly should therefore continue to monitor how the powers operate in practice. The Justice Committee will undoubtedly take an interest in how regulations are developed and how those arrangements function once enacted.

Policing is among the most challenging professions in our society. Thousands of officers and staff serve honourably every day under significant pressure. Nothing in these amendments should be interpreted as criticism of those who carry out their duties professionally and with integrity. Indeed, effective accountability mechanisms ultimately strengthen policing because they reinforce public confidence in the overwhelming majority who do their jobs diligently. Strong accountability protects good officers as much as it protects the public. When misconduct occurs, it damages confidence in the entire service. Addressing misconduct effectively, therefore, serves the interests of policing itself. That is why it is so important that these reforms strike the correct balance.

In conclusion, I believe that these amendments represent a significant and largely positive development in police accountability arrangements. The provisions that relate to former officers address an obvious gap in the current system. The creation of a police barred list closes a loophole that should never have existed. The police advisory list provides greater transparency with regard to unsolved allegations. The ombudsman provisions seek to ensure that serious misconduct can, where circumstances require, be addressed more effectively. However, the success of the reforms will, ultimately, depend not on what is written in legislation but on how those powers are exercised in practice. The guiding principles must remain those of proportionality, transparency, fairness and public confidence. If those principles are maintained, these amendments have the potential to strengthen trust in policing and confidence in the wider justice system. For those reasons, while recognising that continued scrutiny will be necessary, I welcome the intent behind these amendments but, without further clarification, I do not see how they can work. We will wait to see how the rest of the debate unfolds.

Mr Gaston: My intervention will be a short one, in order to abstract some safeguards on the group of amendments that we are considering this evening. I have no doubt that there are bad eggs in the police force. If there are rogue elements in the police force —.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, will you pull your microphone over slightly? I am sure that everybody really wants to hear you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am glad that you want to hear me. My comments will be brief.

There is no doubt that there have been a few bad apples and rogue elements in the police force. Those police officers should be held to account. I want to seek safeguards from the Justice Minister on this group of amendments. Exactly how far in the past will this group of amendments allow investigations to go? That is key to securing our moving on to the next stage. Yes, we hear all about regulations, but I do not see them. The regulations will come after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I seek from the Justice Minister today a safeguard as to where and when the line will be drawn on how far back investigations into police officers can go once they retire. If the Justice Minister wants to take me up on that point, I will be glad to give her an intervention.

Indeed, if the ombudsman wants to bring a case against a retired police officer, is it the case that the PSNI's professional standards department will have the power to decide whether a case is brought forward? What safeguards are in place to make sure that there are no vexatious complaints in legacy cases as a result of this legislation? I hope that the Justice Minister will make an intervention on that now, or, if not, pick up those points in her summing-up. The Justice Minister seems to want to sit in her seat and not take the invitation to make an intervention. I trust that when she sums up, she will outline the safeguards to address the concerns that the provisions will not be abused, that legacy cases will not come back to bite police officers and that sinister elements in political and republican circles will not use this law to dig up past cases and convictions.

The Justice Minister does not want to take me up on that offer. On that basis, I will draw my remarks to close. I trust that she will address those concerns in her winding-up speech.

Mr Speaker: I call the Justice Minister to make her winding-up speech on the group 4 amendments.

Mrs Long: I did not see the point in my getting up and saying again what I have now said multiple times during this debate, when the Member was not present to hear it.

First, today's debate has been useful in providing clarity to those who have engaged in it around the intent of these amendments and how the provisions will be delivered in practice. It is a significant step forward in creating a cohesive system across the UK regions that will safeguard the public and vulnerable members of our society from the actions of those who have proven themselves to be unsuitable for a role in law enforcement. I acknowledge, as many have in the Chamber today, the difficult job that the PSNI has to do and the challenging role that a police officer has to fulfil. However, it is also the case that the role carries with it a lot of power and influence. For that reason, it is right that police officers should be held to a high standard of conduct.

Although it is difficult to predict the impact that a single piece of legislation can have on the criminal justice system, it is important to note the findings on police recruitment and vetting practices of several relevant reports. The report of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland on abuse of position for sexual purposes by PSNI officers, the Langdale review, the Angiolini inquiry and, most recently, the Katie Simpson review have all emphasised the necessity to ensure that robust and cohesive systems are in place that will safeguard against the wrong people gaining roles that, by their nature, afford them a position of trust and authority. Either through intent or unconscious inability, those individuals have proven their unsuitability for the role, and they should be prevented from gaining access to potential victims in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. The proposed amendments are an important step towards closing that legislative gap and aligning us with the rest of the UK to create a cohesive system of legislation and cooperation.

The public and those who are vulnerable, either through their ongoing circumstances or through an unexpected incident, ought to know that they are protected from individuals who seek to abuse the position of trust in which they have been placed. We regularly ask people who have experienced trauma to go to the police to report the incident to them, including victims of domestic and sexual violence and abuse. It is important that, when they go to the PSNI, they are not engaging with someone who themselves might exploit that position of trust and access to do further harm. We need to take the issue seriously when it comes to barred and advisory lists. In light of recent cases in which individuals who were employed to protect society have abused their position, and given some of the horrifying outcomes that we are aware of as a result, I believe that the amendments will ensure that we have a cohesive system of safeguards in place to prevent such people from gaining further employment in roles that would afford them similar access and opportunity to abuse. That is a significant step in addressing behaviours that have no place in law enforcement and in protecting our citizens from those who may be predatory and may seek out a job that gives them status or in some way absolves them from the kind of scrutiny that others would expect.

A lot of discussion has taken place and concern has been expressed about the retrospective effect of the provisions on barred and advisory lists. I have taken time to set out the limitations on those provisions that I envisage coming forward as regulations. The provisions will have a slight retrospective effect; it is limited and will apply only in specific circumstances and be subject to a number of safeguards. The provisions have been drafted to align the Northern Ireland police conduct regulations with those in operation in England and Wales.

New clause 23A sets out the circumstances in which the regime for former officer proceedings can be applied: conditions A, B and C. Condition A is that:

of the appropriate authority. Condition B is that:

of the appropriate authority and that

of the appropriate authority

For example, the regulations in England and Wales, which we intend to align with, limit that period to one year. The Chief Constable then takes the decision as to whether it is reasonable to recall that individual.

Condition C is that:

of the appropriate authority;

of the appropriate authority

if they had still been serving. There is an extra layer of protection in that case.

Further to that, in circumstances in which condition C applies, disciplinary proceedings may be taken against the person only if the ombudsman, as the corollary for the Independent Office for Police Conduct here, determines that taking those proceedings would be reasonable and proportionate. The net effect of the modifications that we need to make will allow cases in which condition A applies for disciplinary proceedings commenced to reach conclusion, even should they retire or resign.

Clause 23A(8)(a) specifies that subsequent regulations:

the primary legislation comes into operation. Only when the Act is commenced will we have a situation in which someone who retires after that point will be amenable under those particular rules. However, it will permit provision to be made for those who cease to be a police officer after it comes into operation even in circumstances in which the alleged conduct occurred prior to the primary legislation. To be clear, only when this becomes operational will the start date of the ability to recall someone who retires kick in, and that person would need to retire on or after that start date. It is only possible to make provision in relation to those who cease to be officers after the primary provisions come into operation. Anyone who retires in the interim will be unaffected.

When it comes to reassurance that Members have sought, the intention is that regulations will be enacted once the primary provision is in place. We will aim to mirror the equivalent provisions already in operation in England and Wales. However, we are willing to engage with Members of the House, members of the Committee, the PSNI, the Police Federation and others about how that should look in our particular circumstances. The provisions in England and Wales specify that for condition A, where the allegation had already been noted before the individual ceased to be an officer, there is a one-year limitation on that recall. Sorry: condition A means that the proceedings can continue, even if the officer ceases to be an officer after the allegation has come to the attention of the authority. Condition B applies in cases in which the individual ceased to be an officer prior to the allegation coming to their attention but it happens within 12 months. That one will be for the PSNI. In England and Wales, it is 12 months. I see no reason why we would wish to deviate from the 12-month limitation here.

Condition C applies in cases in which the individual ceased to be an officer and it took longer than 12 months for the allegation to come to light. In England and Wales, under those circumstances, you can go to disciplinary only where you have a special determination by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It is envisaged that the Police Ombudsman will fulfil the equivalent function here. However, it will mirror the England and Wales provisions in setting out a specific framework, via which the ombudsman will make a special determination. The ombudsman will consider the seriousness of the alleged gross misconduct, the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police, and the public interest. In making any determination, it will also consider the nature and seriousness of that conduct.

To be clear, those regulations have been in operation in England and Wales since 2017, and we continue to engage with the Home Office on good practice. In England and Wales, condition C is limited in time to the point where the police code of conduct was set in legislation, which, in England and Wales, was 2012. Again, I see no reason why we would depart from that mechanism, although, again, I am open to engaging with Members and others as the regulations are drafted. The equivalent date here would be 1 July 2016, which is when our code of conduct came into force. It is our intention to have a time limit.

I have been clear about the burden that legacy places on the Department of Justice, the ombudsman's office and the Police Service. With new legacy arrangements coming down the track from Westminster, I do not want to reopen or create more work in the justice system when there are alternative mechanisms for those to be addressed.

Amendment No 76 would allow the Police Ombudsman to submit an early report where it is clear at that point in the investigation that the officer concerned has committed gross misconduct. On the way through an investigation, that may well be reached well before a final decision on whether the criminal threshold for prosecution has been met. That will allow an early report to the Chief Constable in order for him to make a decision on whether they should have a special case hearing, as we discussed. That could reduce the time spent on suspension at a cost to the public purse while awaiting the outcome of a criminal case, provided that any resultant disciplinary proceedings can be judged not to prejudice the criminal case. That would, without doubt, require the responsible person to liaise with the PPS to ensure that it would not do so. It would also allow the PSNI access to the information that is required to commence and conclude disciplinary proceedings, so long as it does no harm. That is something that not only the Police Ombudsman believes would be helpful but which two Chief Constables and a number of other senior officers have said they would find helpful. It would enable them to move more swiftly to ensure that the person is removed from service if they are unfit, particularly in serious offence cases where you are dealing with gross misconduct.

All of this is about keeping the public safe, ensuring that we have confidence in the PSNI and ensuring that the good officers who put themselves between us and danger every day do not have their reputation damaged by people in the organisation who act in bad faith, abuse their position and seek to bring the organisation into disrepute. I never want to be in a position where we need to use the regulations. I would like to believe that every officer who joins the PSNI will do so with the desire and intent to serve people lawfully, diligently and with the highest personal and professional standards. However, that may not be the case. When it is not, it is important for the protection of those diligent officers, the public and others with whom they may work in the future that we have barred and advisory lists so that no one who is under suspicion of poor practice at home can simply go and work in another service elsewhere. It is also important that that can be dispatched as quickly as is practicable so that we do not lean on the public purse and spend money on such cases as, we know, has happened in the past. For instance, we know that an officer who was suspended for a prolonged period, on full pay, worked a second job during their suspension. We know that those things have happened. That is what we want to prevent. It is not to besmirch every officer, and it is certainly not to open up another round of legacy opportunities. It is solely to ensure that officers reach the highest standards and are protected from colleagues who do not.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease before we work out the next stage, given arising matters.

Members, thank you for your patience. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 4.30 pm.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As there are Ayes from all sides of the House and only one dissenting voice, the Ayes have it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As there are Ayes from all sides of the House and only one dissenting voice, the Ayes have it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have been advised by party Whips that there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We now come to the fifth group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 74, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 75 and 90. I call Paul Frew to move amendment No 74 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Frew: I beg to move amendment No 74:

Mr Frew: This group of amendments —.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just had it confirmed by the Chief Constable in the Great Hall of this very Building that the individual who was involved in the barbaric attack in north Belfast entered Northern Ireland from Dublin on 10 February 2023. Nine months later, he tried to claim asylum in Northern Ireland. I therefore call on the Minister of Justice to come urgently to the House — this elected forum — to explain to elected representatives what exactly has happened. It would appear that there has been a multi-agency and government failure, so —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: — the Justice Minister —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley, I am on my feet.

Mr Buckley: — must come urgently to the House and explain —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley, I am on my feet. You must resume your seat when I am on my feet, as you well know. Do not test the patience of any Speaker, and do not challenge, whatever the circumstances. You know that. In addition, points of order are to be made about the business of the House. It is fair to predict that that was most certainly not a point of order. Nevertheless, your comments will go to the Speaker's Office. Points of order are not to be made directly to Ministers, as you well know. Other than that, there is nothing for me to add.

I call Mr Frew again.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will open the debate on this group of amendments, which deals with drink- and drug-driving measures and police seizure of vehicles. This is a really important issue, one of public safety for those on our roads and footpaths, and I will delve into more detail on why I think that that is the case.

I was motivated to table amendment Nos 74 and 75 because my colleague Stephen Dunne MLA asked me to attend a meeting in his constituency with the family of young Jaidyn Rice, who, sadly, lost her life on 8 July 2025 on our roads. It was clear that the family was motivated to do something as a legacy for Jaidyn. I listened to them that day and saw at first hand the work that Stephen, the family and their supporters had done to try to change the law on public safety, through Jaidyn's law, by making it tighter with regard to drug testing. I will not go into the details now, but I pay my respects and pay tribute to Jaidyn's family for the fight and campaign that it has led.

The family asked us to consider the current legislative framework governing post-collision testing in Northern Ireland as it is no longer sufficient. In particular, the family believes that the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 requires an amendment to introduce stand-alone statutory provisions mandating drug testing where a road traffic collision results in a fatality or serious injury. The family is particularly concerned that the current framework risks creating an unintended gap when a collision causes life-threatening or catastrophic injuries but death occurs some time later following a period of hospitalisation. In such circumstances, the absence of mandatory testing at the point of collision may result in the loss of crucial evidence and failure to identify impairment at the relevant time.

The family believes that that represents a clear risk to public confidence and the integrity of post-collision investigations. It further believes that mandatory drug testing should be available to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in a manner equivalent to existing breathalyser provisions so that testing becomes an automatic and routine safeguard rather than a discretionary power dependent on subjective thresholds or subsequent developments. The family notes that article 17 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 provides powers for the taking of specimens. It is firmly of the view, however, that those powers are too limited in scope and insufficiently robust, particularly in cases involving a loss of life or serious injury, and do not deliver the certainty or consistency that such grave circumstances demand. Therefore, the family believes that this specific legislative amendment is required to ensure that drug testing forms a compulsory element of post-collision procedure in fatal and serious injury cases.

That is the family's stance, and I support it. Drugs are prevalent in our society. They are everywhere, all types of drugs doing all sorts of damage to people's minds and bodies. It is inevitable that those people who take or abuse drugs spill out on to our roads. That is where the danger lies, and we, as a party, are trying to address that. Under article 17 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, police officers have the power to require preliminary impairment testing where reasonable suspicion exists, but the power is discretionary and relies on the personal judgement of the attending officer.

I pay tribute to the bravery and courage of our police officers and the traffic police officers who, day and daily, combat that sort of thing and keep our roads safe. This is not a slight to any police officer; it is about making sure that we take a consistent approach where, in practice, as policing bodies acknowledge, a grey area has been created. Testing decisions may vary between officers and incidents, meaning that, even in the case of serious road traffic collisions, including those involving multiple driving offences or fatalities, drug testing is not automatically carried out. That inconsistency risks the loss of crucial forensic evidence, unequal investigative standards, weakened prosecutions and, for bereaved families, stress and uncertainty.

Jaidyn's law proposes a clear amendment to article 17 to introduce mandatory drug testing in defined, serious circumstances. Testing would become automatic where a driver commits multiple offences while the vehicle is in motion or where a road traffic collision involves serious injury or results in death. That would remove the reliance on individual officer interpretation, replacing it with a consistent statutory requirement that, I believe, the police will support and welcome.

Why is that change necessary? Often, drug impairment is not visibly detectable at the roadside. Unlike in cases of alcohol intoxication, drivers may appear outwardly normal despite having significant impairment that affects reaction time, judgement and hazard awareness. Current legislation depends on an officer's suspicion, so impaired drivers might not be tested, vital evidence might be permanently lost and investigations might, at a later time, face evidential challenges. Mandatory testing ensures that every serious incident is investigated to the same evidential standards.

The benefits of that law are that it will remove the grey area in enforcement; provide clear operational direction for the police; protect officers by replacing judgement calls with statutory procedures; and preserve crucial evidence in the case of serious incidents. It will strengthen prosecution outcomes and support transparency and justice for victims and families. It will act as a strong deterrent against drug-impaired driving, which is where we want to be.

This matters because, when a road traffic collision results in death or serious, life-changing injury, families must have confidence that every possible step has been taken. Mandatory testing ensures that no evidential opportunity is missed, that no family is left with unanswered questions and that every serious collision is treated equally under the law.

The aim of Jaidyn's law is to make a proportionate and practical amendment to modernise road traffic enforcement in Northern Ireland and to align the investigation of drug impairment with the procedural certainty that is applied to alcohol testing. The reform is not about expanding police powers. It is about ensuring that those powers are applied consistently and transparently. In the most serious cases, that means eliminating any grey area and the resulting, added trauma caused to families by their loved ones' lives not being regarded as "reasonable cause" for testing. That is why this is so important.

I will speak to, and through, the amendments that I tabled along with Maurice Bradley, Brian Kingston and, importantly, Stephen Dunne, who first brought this to our attention. I pay tribute to Stephen for his work not only with me on the amendments but for the family of Jaidyn Rice; I commend the Member for that. In our lives as MLAs, we sometimes have to deal with horrific, serious cases, and that which Stephen, with the family, has had to deal with, is just one such case. I pay tribute to him, because he has walked with the family through it all, including the meetings that he has had with the Minister, the Infrastructure Minister, and the police. We have come to the conclusion that the House should pass these amendments.

Amendment No 74 is on "Drugs testing at authorised check-points". It is important that drug testing be on a par with alcohol testing. Who knows the measure and the scale of the problem out there? I suspect that the police do not even know how many people on our roads are under the influence of drugs. It is very hard to detect. It is very hard to know. As I said earlier, there will not always be a visible clue. For decades, we had campaign after campaign on alcohol and drink-driving, but I think we are now in a position where drug-driving is probably more prevalent than drink-driving. That is a testament to the society in which we live and the state of society with regard to drugs. Drugs are dangerous in their own right, and if they are abused, there are major problems. When that spills on to our roads, it can hurt anybody and everybody — young and old — and it can affect their lives forever.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I also thank his colleagues whom I met along with the family of Jaidyn Rice. You will be aware that, in addition to these amendments, there is provision in the sentencing Bill to increase the sentence available for those who, through intoxication from drink or drugs, cause death or serious injury. It is really important that in cases such as that of Enda Dolan, for example, the maximum penalty available is raised in order that it can reflect the seriousness of the incident. It is not an accident. If you take drugs or drink and get behind the wheel of a car, it is a deliberate act, and if somebody suffers loss, hurt or injury as a result of that, you should definitely be held fully accountable.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that vital intervention. I agree wholeheartedly with her. I look forward to working with her and her Department on the sentencing Bill as it progresses.

Amendment No 74 adds a new clause to amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It sits alongside what is already in existence in article 17CA, "Breath testing at authorised check-points", which deals with alcohol testing. What new article 17CB will do is bring drug testing at authorised checkpoints up to a par with alcohol testing. It is vital that the police have the power to stop and organise a checkpoint to test for drugs. It seems like a no-brainer, but we need to make sure that the police have the powers and the vires that they need to combat this scourge on society and to make our roads safer. That is why I ask the House to support amendment No 74.

Amendment No 75 is on "Duty to administer preliminary tests". Currently, there is a power to administer preliminary tests under article 17 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. In article 17 on the power to administer preliminary tests, it states "any of paragraphs (2) to (5)" — there is a range of five items. What we are saying is that it should read:

instead of

So it is:

Paragraph (2) states:

Paragraph (3) states:

Moving on to paragraphs (4) and (5), the change in the amendment is:

So that no one is in any doubt, I clarify that paragraph (4) applies:

If the police stop someone because of reckless driving, careless driving or any other offence, they should test that driver for drugs.

Paragraph (5) applies if:

Therefore, when the police are called to the scene of a road traffic accident where there is injury or death, it will be mandatory to drug test the people involved in that accident. You would expect that to be the case with alcohol, so why should we not expect that with drugs?

That is why the amendments are so important. It is why, along with Stephen Dunne and my colleagues Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston, I was fully motivated to table the amendments. I think that society requires that of us because of the ills around drug taking. It will not be the answer. It will not stop things happening on our roads, but it will allow families to get truth and justice in a far better way than is currently being done, where there are gaps, and the police say that there are grey areas. Stephen will talk a bit more about that and about his experiences of meeting the police.

I will move to the amendment regarding scooters. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with my colleagues Patsy McGlone and Nuala McAllister. I know that other Members were also interested in it. When we put out on social media that we were proposing the amendment jointly, a lot of my colleagues shared it, took it for themselves and put it on their social media platforms. I welcome that awareness raising, because there is absolutely no doubt that the prevalence of e-scooters now is mighty. The growth in the number of those vehicles darting around our streets is immense. Not a week goes by without me getting a complaint in my constituency office from someone who has nearly been hit by an e-scooter or from a driver of a car, who nearly hit someone who has darted across the road as they were driving down it. It is not only young people who use them; it is also older people. Some use the vehicles to commute to work. While they are handy and get you there more quickly, they are off-road vehicles. We need to look at it more thoroughly. We might need to have a Bill in its own right to deal with it. Whether that be through regulation or tougher prohibition, I do not have the answer, but what I do know is that, when multiple parties worked together in the House, we came up with something that will make it easier for the police to deal with the current problem.

There have even been cases where constituents have walked out of my office door and nearly been cleaned by people on scooters doing up to 30 mph on a footpath. Sian Mulholland is my neighbour. Her office is on the same street as mine, and there are jewellers, barbers, hairdressers, estate agents, opticians and furniture stores. All sorts of clientele, young and old, use our footpaths as they have a right to do, but they have to dodge e-scooters. We need to deal with this massive issue.

Patsy will speak to this aspect of the amendment later on. However, the amendment makes it easier for the police to seize the vehicles, and there will be no requirement to issue a warning to the person driving the vehicle. Basically, when the police stop somebody and have their hands on the e-scooter, they will be able to seize that vehicle without prior warning. That is common sense; it is not everything because we did not have the time to do more. I suspect that if we had more time, we could have done more work together, but it is a start. I appeal to the parents who buy their children e-scooters to be mindful that they are for off-road use, and that they should be used on waste ground. An e-scooter is not conducive to waste ground, unlike a scrambler bike or a trials bike. An e-scooter has smaller wheels, and it cannot travel over rough ground. Therefore, why are parents buying their child an e-scooter? If you buy a child an e-scooter to travel along the carriageway, you are breaking the law; they will be breaking the law, but you are putting your child in grave danger because they may go out on the scooter and do 30 mph without protective clothing or a helmet, and you are taking the risk that your son or daughter will be injured.

A number of weeks ago, there was an issue in my constituency, where a young person was hurt. A boy called Joshua was walking down the footpath, and an e-scooter came up behind him. He noticed the e-scooter and tried to get out of the way. He moved left or right, but whatever direction he moved in, so did the scooter. The scooter hit him, and Joshua had to go to the hospital because his elbow had been shattered and his arm and shoulder had been hurt in several places. Joshua was due to go on holiday the next week with his family, but his family missed out on the holiday. That is the impact that e-scooters can have. The young boy should make a full recovery. He has missed the holiday, but he should make a full recovery.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. The issue has been raised with me by my constituents when I have knocked on their doors. Will the Member concur that Guide Dogs UK will support the amendment because it is not just a problem for those who are able-bodied, but they are a particular concern for people with visual problems?

Mr Frew: Absolutely. The safest place for people with a visual disability should be a footpath. We should make our footpaths as safe as we possibly can for people with visual impairments or disabilities. Yet the e-scooters can zoom down the streets at 30 mph.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. He is, as always, very generous with his time. The Member mentioned a young man who was injured by an e-scooter. Many parents buy the e-scooters, and their children use them without helmets and are moving at quite a speed. Does the Member agree that people need to consider the risks to the children who use e-scooters, not just the life-changing injuries, but the permanent damage, if not death? There needs to be some responsibility shown by the parents who purchase those vehicles when they know there is no suitable place where they can be operated safely, instead of, basically, launching their child out the door with something that could cause death or serious injury.

Mr Frew: I agree 100% with the Minister. I will not be hard on parents, because those vehicles are the next new, shiny thing, and children say, "I want, I want, I want". We all know how hard it is to parent. We also know how much children crave things, especially if their mates have them, but that can add to the danger, because, in groups, children tend to go a wee bit wild at times. There is a bigger danger from having groups of children on scramblers.

The Minister makes a really valid point. Young Joshua will recover, but, if he had been hit on the head, he could be dead now. There have been cases involving off-road vehicles in which young people, even in my area of Ballymena, have died, so it is really important that we grapple with the issue. I say this to adults who buy such vehicles to get from A to B and to commute: think about what you are doing and about how you use them. Please drive them safely, if you have to drive them all, because you are in breach of the law.

Be aware that the Republic of Ireland, among other jurisdictions, has gone down the road of regulation. There was a hue and cry among owners of such scooters when the regulations came out. Most of the scooters that were purchased prior to the regulations being introduced did not make the grade and were deemed not fit for the road. There is therefore a real issue that someone could purchase a scooter this week or next week, only for the Department to decide to do something by way of regulations. I may be pre-empting what happens in the future. We may not go down the regulation route, because there may be other ways, such as prohibition. It is a really important matter, however, and people need to be wise to the dangers on our roads.

It is not right or fair that a driver who is being diligent, careful and safe could be driving along a road, when, the next minute, someone darts out on a scooter and is hit. Think of the trauma that that would cause the driver, not least because of the injuries sustained by the person on the scooter. Think of the trauma that would live with that driver for the rest of their life for having, through no fault of their own, hit and caused grievous harm to them. It is really important that the Assembly grapple with such issues, so I pay tribute to Patsy McGlone and Nuala McAllister for working on amendment No 90 to change article 65 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 for:

If amendment No 90 passes, we will have removed from article 65 paragraphs (4) and (5) , which are about police powers of seizure without issuing a warning.

It is really important that the Assembly support the three amendments in group 5, and I hope that it does. We tabled them because we think that they represent good law and are good for public safety. The Assembly is at its best when it creates such law at pace while knowing that it is the right law, especially when it is supported by all parties.

Thank you for giving me the time to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr McGlone: The fifth group of amendments is united and clearly defined by a straightforward objective: to make our roads, streets and public spaces safer. The SDLP welcomes the provisions on drink- and drug-driving.

I will begin by speaking to amendment Nos 74 and 75. No one should underestimate the dangers posed by driving while impaired through alcohol or drugs. Whether that impairment arises through drink or drugs, the consequences can be equally devastating. Drivers place themselves, their passengers and other road users at risk when they get behind the wheel while their judgement, reaction times and awareness are compromised. The measures before us recognise the simple reality that the police need practical and proportionate powers to identify those who may be unfit to drive and to gather the evidence necessary to secure enforcement action where appropriate. The introduction of roadside drug-testing powers alongside the ability to obtain evidential samples through established procedures will help to ensure that the law keeps pace with changing patterns of offending and changing forms of impairment. They are sensible, measured provisions that support road safety and effective enforcement.

I want to spend a little more time on amendment No 90. At this stage, I thank Paul Frew and Nuala McAllister for their endorsement, as well as others who have expressed their verbal support to me during the development of the amendment. It is clear to anyone who walks through our towns and cities, especially, or visits parks and speaks to local residents that the misuse of scramblers and other vehicles has escalated well beyond a nuisance issue. Constituents contact us regularly — principally people in some of the more built-up and urban areas — about near misses involving children, elderly pedestrians and families who are using public spaces. Many Members will be familiar with complaints about high-powered scramblers tearing through parks and housing estates and e-scooters travelling at speed on footpaths in a reckless and intimidating manner. In communities across the North, what should be shared public spaces have too often become places where residents feel unsafe.

We should be clear about the risks involved. I am glad that we have the opportunity to speak about them today. When they are used irresponsibly, those vehicles are capable of causing serious injury; indeed, the Committee Chair, Paul Frew, referred to an incident in his constituency. I am sure that there have been multiple other similar instances. In some circumstances, they can cause death. The consequences for pedestrians, particularly children, older people and people with disabilities, can be catastrophic, as they can be for the people who use the vehicles. The PSNI has repeatedly highlighted the practical difficulties associated with tackling that behaviour. Officers often face a difficult choice: either they pursue a vehicle and risk escalating a dangerous situation, or they allow that behaviour to continue because the legal threshold for intervention has not yet been met.

That is why amendment No 90 is so important. The amendment removes the requirement for a prior warning before a vehicle can be seized where it has been used in a manner that causes alarm, distress or annoyance. In our view, that reflects the reality of the situation faced by communities and the police. Where a vehicle has already been used in a dangerous, reckless or intimidatory manner, it is difficult to justify a position where the response of the authorities is simply to issue a warning and allow that individual to continue on their way. The purpose of seizure powers is preventative. They exist to prevent harm from occurring to pedestrians and the people who use the vehicles, not simply to respond after somebody has been injured. The amendment therefore provides the PSNI with a practical tool to intervene at the point where intervention is needed most.

It also sends an important message: public spaces belong to everyone. They belong to families, children, older people, people who are walking to work and those who simply wish to enjoy their local communities without fear, intimidation or risk. The rights of those individuals must come before the interests of those who choose to use vehicles irresponsibly and, in some cases, dangerously.

Taken together, the amendments represent proportionate and practical measures aimed at protecting the public. They strengthen the police's ability to tackle impaired driving, provide more effective powers for dealing with dangerous and antisocial vehicle use and help to ensure that our roads, streets and public spaces are safer for everyone who uses them. For those reasons, the SDLP welcomes the amendments in the group and, in particular, calls on Members to support amendment No 90.

Ms Ferguson: My party welcomes and supports the three amendments in group 5 on drink- and drug-driving measures and police seizure of vehicles. Driving while under the influence of drink or drugs is one of the Fatal Five: the main reasons why people die on our roads.

I welcome the inclusion of amendment Nos 74 and 75 regarding drug testing at authorised checkpoints, and the strengthening of the wording of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 on the policing powers to administer preliminary tests.

It should be noted that the Road Traffic Act 2016 in the South of Ireland introduced roadside saliva testing. The gardaí can test at mandatory intoxication checkpoints. In addition, its Road Traffic Act 2024 made drug testing mandatory after serious collisions, aligning it with the regime for alcohol testing.

I emphasise that initial results from a 12-month, roadside drug wipes pilot here showed that around half of the people tested by police were positive for cannabis and/or cocaine. I welcome the fact that the Infrastructure Minister followed that with a significant investment in a targeted road traffic campaign, and her Department type-approved the drug wipes, making it possible for the PSNI to use drug wipes to detect the presence of drugs at the roadside.

I also take a brief moment to recognise and praise the family of Enda Dolan, and other families, who are devastated by drink-/drug-related deaths. As the Minister noted, additional change is also needed in the upcoming Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill to bolster efforts to ensure that adequate deterrents are in place to protect other families from similar pain and heartbreak.

Amendment No 90 amends article 65 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, which grants police the power to immediately seize a motor vehicle that is being used in a careless or inconsistent manner, without warning. That applies to any mechanically propelled vehicle that is intended or adapted for use on roads, including e-scooters, e-bikes and scramblers. Whilst such vehicles do not generally comply with construction and use legislation and vehicle standards for road usage, we all know only too well of the recent examples of the misuse of such adapted vehicles in our local communities, which is causing rising casualty figures and significant distress.

It is beyond concerning how many people, including children and young people, are driving those powerful machines without helmets or protective gear in residential areas, on pedestrian pathways and in public areas, causing risk to life or significant injury, not only to themselves but to others around them. As a Derry-based MLA, I know only too well the specific challenges in our neighbourhoods and our city, and recent policing efforts to conduct targeted operations in hotspots to seize illegally ridden vehicles. The reality is that younger children do not have the judgement, coordination or hazard awareness that such powerful devices require.

Just yesterday, Dr Ian Dunwoody, in the emergency department in Altnagelvin Hospital, highlighted the worrying rise in serious injuries that are linked to e-scooters and e-bikes. He is seeing injuries that are far more serious, with more children needing surgery. Likewise, the Faculty of Paediatrics of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland has noted the unprecedented rise in brain injuries that are being caused by e-scooters. It stated:

As for other pedestrians, we know that those machines create additional vulnerability and risk for people with disabilities, small children, older people, and others, as those vehicles often weave through them at speed or straight into busy, oncoming traffic, often causing terrifying near misses, dangerous collisions or serious injury. We have heard of lived experiences from people locally with sight and hearing impairments who have had their confidence knocked as a result of terrifying ordeals that affected their independence and led to further isolation.

The message needs to be loud and clear: we have a duty to act collectively, with a coordinated approach across sellers, users, owners, parents, the PSNI and statutory partners, to reduce the usage of such vehicles on our roads. Whilst the amendment is vital to ensuring safe spaces and the freedom to travel and socialise with confidence, it is urgent to prevent the absolute devastation that would arise from loss of life as a result of e-scooter use.

I urge everyone to support amendment Nos 74, 75 and 90.

Miss McAllister: Again, I am not sure whether I need to, but I declare that I am a member of the Policing Board and have asked questions relating to the issues in the amendments that we are speaking to this evening.

Most of my remarks will be on amendment No 90, which I was happy to put my name to. I thank the Member from the SDLP for agreeing to that. It is important that we work together as elected representatives to push forward and change the law to give the police powers, where necessary, to make our streets safer. We hope that this mechanism will remove the need for police officers to give a warning before seizing e-scooters and scramblers that are used in any manner "causing alarm, distress or annoyance". It is important to reflect that, currently, the police have the power to remove. We see photos on social media every week that police put out across Northern Ireland. In my district, in Belfast, and particularly in North Belfast, we often see the police put up photos of the scramblers and e-scooters that they have seized. A lot of the seizures are based primarily on not having insurance; the police use that power as well. It is, however, also important to reflect that there is a power and that there will be a greater power to remove them when they are driven dangerously.

The aim is to give greater strength and flexibility to the police to deal with the issue. It is not new, but it is certainly growing on the streets in Northern Ireland. I understand as well as anyone in the Chamber that e-scooters and scramblers are enticing, particularly for young people, who are full of adventure. They want to use them. They do not want to use their bikes any more, because they feel that those vehicles are a more fun way to get around, but that is not just what it is any more. When you see either e-scooters or scramblers, they will primarily be with young people. I do not say that to stigmatise young people either, because, let us face it, they are not buying the e-scooters, but I will go on to that in a moment. It is mostly young people who we see cutting across junctions without wearing helmets, paying no regard to stop signs, green lights or red lights, and going in front of traffic and often up on to footpaths. We had an incident in west Belfast a couple of weeks ago. It was really sad to see a very young child being injured. It was so lucky that he did not lose his life. His mum has also spoken up about the dangers of e-scooters. The current law means that they are for off-road use. They are supposed to be used in places or on land that is designated for those types of vehicles, because they require a licence and insurance. Some safety regulations apply, but they are not just being used in that way.

It is not just about ensuring that e-scooters and scramblers can be seized; it is about drawing greater public attention and awareness to the issue. As the 'Belfast Telegraph' reported — I think that it came from an FOI request — it was acknowledged that there have been 200 casualties, 51 serious injuries and three deaths in Northern Ireland from 2021-25 because of e-scooters and scramblers. Quite frankly, I think that that is too high. Ms Ferguson spoke about the increase in injuries that an emergency department consultant said that he had seen. We have won that argument. We recognise that, as does everyone in the public. I do not doubt that every constituency office has heard from a member of the public who wants this to be dealt with.

We also need to look at the approach that is taken in Ireland around further regulation. Whilst the amendment that we are speaking about today is about the seizure of those vehicles, nobody in the Chamber is pretending that that will be the panacea for dealing with e-scooters and scramblers. Nobody is standing up and saying that. It should be on the record that we know that there should be greater regulation. Whether that regulation looks similar to that in the Republic of Ireland is for discussion. The Republic of Ireland has an age limit. There are designated lanes that e-scooters can be ridden on, albeit our active travel infrastructure is severely lacking in Northern Ireland. Also, the speed in miles per hour that they can go at is worth another discussion here in the Assembly Chamber. The Department for Infrastructure needs to step up to the plate to ensure that there is regulation for the speed limit. We cannot go for years without having regulations, otherwise we will see more and more injuries.

It is not just about having a policing response. Too often, dangerous issues in Northern Ireland are·left to the police to deal with. We need to ensure that there is a cross-departmental approach. From correspondence and responses to questions, I know that the Minister of Justice agrees and has urged the Department for Infrastructure to work on the issue. The Department of Justice will help in any way that it can, but, ultimately, it is for the Department for Infrastructure to lead on it. I hope that, after today, that is recognised and pushed forward.

In the meantime, while we push for amendment No 90 to be agreed, it is worth using the opportunity to call not just on young people but on their parents. It is the parents or guardians who buy e-scooters at hundreds of pounds. It is not the young people. Some e-scooters cost thousands of pounds. It is up to the parents who make an active decision to buy those vehicles for their children to use. That is the reality. That is not saying that they are bad parents. It is saying that parents need to reflect on their decision and ask themselves, "Is that safe?", and, "How is my child using it?". I urge all parents to reconsider when it comes to buying such vehicles, because their children may end up in harm's way, not through their fault but by accident.

The Assembly can take action. I welcome amendment No 90. I put my name to it and I thank the Member again for tabling it, but it is not the only action that we can take. I hope that we have cross-party support to pass it today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, as you know, the Business Committee agreed to have an evening suspension. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 6.30 pm, when debate on this group of amendments will continue. The next Member to be called to speak will be Gerry Kelly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Gerry Carroll.

Apologies, Mr Kelly. That was rude of me.

Mr Kelly: I will take it as a compliment, because he is younger than me. [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I was already thinking about Mr Carroll's sartorial elegance, and then you stood up.

Mr Kelly: You have to take whatever you can get.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): My apologies. I call Gerry Kelly.

Mr Kelly: Go raibh maith agat.

Sinn Féin supports all three of the amendments in group five. As we know, amendment Nos 74 and 75 will introduce new powers to allow the police do drug testing at checkpoints and road traffic collisions, which will bring drug testing in line with existing alcohol breath testing. It is a necessary step to ensure public safety. A number of Members have given examples of why that is necessary, which I do not need to go into.

I will speak a wee bit more about amendment No 90, which will strengthen police seizure powers for tackling motor vehicles that are being used in a manner that is causing alarm, distress or annoyance. In my constituency — I presume that this is also the case in many others — I see an increase in the use of e-scooters, scramblers and e-bikes. While there is no doubt about the potential benefits of the use of e-scooters, I see those vehicles being used recklessly and dangerously every day. Other Members have also spoken about that. Young people are riding those powerful machines without protective helmets, swerving in and out of traffic, doing stunts and putting themselves and others in harm's way. They are often dressed all in black, and drivers in particular have great difficulty seeing them. I have seen a lot of them whose faces are covered, who are dressed deliberately in black and who travel from interface to interface at certain times. I am not tarring them all with the same brush, but you can see a growing misuse of them in other ways as well.

In West Belfast just last week, at least two children were hospitalised as a result of collisions involving e-scooters and e-bikes, including one in which a young person's head went through the back window of a car. They are very lucky to be alive. Not so long ago, a devastating loss of life was experienced at the hands of young person who was driving a scrambler in a public park in Suffolk. A mother of three lost her life. Her husband, children and family have to live with that pain for the rest of their lives. We are talking about something that is provably very serious.

It is only a matter of time before more lives are lost. We all need to step up to ensure that the police have the powers to act.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kelly: Surely.

Mr Burrows: This is on a slight tangent, and I might get told off. You talked about the police having powers. All of the powers that we are talking about could be scuppered if we change the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14. If, for example, someone under 14 on an e-scooter kills someone as a result of dangerous driving, they could not be arrested.

Mr Kelly: I am not sure that that is correct, but I take your point. However, that is a different issue. We will deal with that issue as we go on, as you know. I want to concentrate on this issue for the moment.

Ms Sheerin: I apologise for intervening again so soon. For clarification, a fortnight ago, a nine-year-old was arrested in Derry. What you have just presented is misinformation. Given your previous role, I think that you know that that is misinformation. It is not in order for you to mislead the House.

Mr Kelly: Thank you.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kelly: I will not, because, frankly —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): One second, please, Mr Kelly. Ladies and gentlemen, we will continue with the debate, but I wish to say that all remarks should be made via the Chair, not across the way to one another. An intervention on an intervention on an intervention is not normal procedure, as we all know.

Back to you, Mr Kelly.

Mr Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Many of my constituents are frightened to walk on footpaths or cross roads out of fear of those fast and powerful vehicles being driven dangerously and weaving in and out of traffic and pedestrians. As some Members mentioned, elderly people and those with visual impairments have a particular fear. Like other Members, I am contacted by constituents who are telling me clearly that we need to do something to tackle the problem. I am therefore pleased to support the cross-party amendment, as it will strengthen the police's power to seize such vehicles immediately when they are being:

I understand that the amendment is not a panacea. Ultimately, however, it will improve the tools at the police's disposal.

There is a further issue regarding what happens to the vehicles once they are seized. The police should have the power to destroy them if it is determined that they were being driven illegally or dangerously. I have raised the issue with the police on a number of occasions and along with Nuala McAllister at the Policing Board, as she said. In North Belfast, 12 such vehicles were seized within a week, and I understand that 10 were seized elsewhere in Belfast. The legislation is not clear enough on what to do with them.

Responsibility for increasing the PSNI's enforcement powers may fall to the Justice Minister. Legislation may be required. We talked about regulations earlier, and a number of Members said that we may have to return to the issue. I understand that we are dealing with one particular issue in the Bill, but the Minister may agree that it is something that we should come back to as our experience of what is happening grows. I would welcome an update from the Minister, if she has one to give. She may agree that we can do something at Further Consideration Stage; maybe that is not right. In fairness to the Minister, she was nodding her head, so we may return to the issue, because more powers are needed, maybe through primary legislation or maybe through regulations.

As everybody knows, it is already illegal to use such vehicles on public roads. There is therefore a need for proper enforcement and for proper education of our young people and their parents, as has been mentioned a number of times, on the dangers of misusing those vehicles.

Mr Dunne: The Justice Bill has certainly been a considerable piece of work. As someone who served on the Justice Committee for one year, I have some appreciation of the extent of detailed consideration that has been given to such important work. I join others who spoke earlier in thanking all those who took part in the evidence sessions on what is an extensive Bill and worked on the considerable number of amendments. I also thank the Committee staff for their ongoing work.

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak to this important group of amendments. I will focus my remarks on the two amendments — amendment Nos 74 and 75 — that stand in my name and in the names of my colleagues Paul Frew, who, everyone in the House will know, has done a considerable amount of work on the Bill and has much more to do, Brian Kingston and Maurice Bradley, all of whom serve on the Justice Committee. Ultimately, the motivation behind tabling the amendments is to improve road safety, to ensure that legislation keeps pace with the ever-changing nature of challenges across the whole of Northern Ireland society and to ensure that our Police Service has every possible tool available to it — the right tools at the right time in the right place — and that those tools are used effectively.

Sadly, we have seen the number of deaths on our roads continue to rise. The numbers from the past 10 years in Northern Ireland tell a truly shocking story that should make us all pause and reflect. In just 10 years, since 2016, more than 600 people have lost their lives on our roads in road traffic collisions. That is 600 families who have been left devastated by lives tragically cut short. In 2023 alone, there were 71 fatalities. In 2024, 69 lives were lost. In 2025, 56 lives were lost. Alarmingly, 31 lives have been lost this year already. Over the same decade, the number of people killed or seriously injured — what statistics call "KSIs"— has also risen to truly staggering and shocking levels. While total annual fatalities have seen slight fluctuations, serious injuries have, alarmingly, climbed sharply. Last year alone, over 1,100 people sustained life-altering injuries. We have seen the impact of the PSNI's Fatal Five, as has been mentioned by other Members. Many KSIs involved drug-driving, drink-driving and other such issues, and it is important that the legislation reflects the realities of today.

As we all know, however, behind statistics are lives, and one fatality last year stood out for me when 16-year-old Jaidyn Rice, a young girl whom I was privileged to meet in this Building just over one year ago, lost her life on a summer evening last year. She was an impressive young lady with dreams and ambitions. She had her whole life in front of her, but her life was lost. Jaidyn's family has campaigned passionately for safer roads across Northern Ireland, and I, along with my colleague Mr Frew, pay tribute to Jaidyn's family for that sterling and ongoing work. I also thank the Justice Minister and the Infrastructure Minister for meeting the family a number of months ago and for taking the time to listen. The family members' lives have, understandably, been shattered by Jaidyn's loss, and I know that they appreciated the opportunity to meet both Ministers and to share their passion for making our roads safer. The family have acknowledged that listening ear, which was very much appreciated. I welcome Minister Long's commitments made earlier in the debate about the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc.) Bill, and the plans for tougher sentences, particularly in relation to drug- and drink-driving. It is important that that continues at pace.

The amendments, if passed, will be known as "Jaidyn's law" and will be a fitting tribute to her if they provide greater clarity, consistency and protection for every family in Northern Ireland. Jaidyn's legacy should be one that delivers positive change. My colleague Paul Frew outlined clearly the rationale for amendment Nos 74 and 75, which I do not intend to repeat in detail, given how articulately he did it. I encourage the Minister and the Assembly to give serious consideration to the amendments and work towards a legislative framework that provides greater clarity, consistency and confidence for those who, unfortunately, have been involved in serious road traffic accidents.

Alcohol testing has rightly become an accepted, important and normal part of road safety enforcement and messaging, which is welcome and vital. It is reasonable, therefore, to consider drug testing being treated with the same seriousness.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. One of the challenges that I will refer to in my speech is that, unlike with alcohol, we do not have statutory limits for drugs in a person's system, and that can make it hard for the police to enforce because they have to observe incapacity to know that a person has been taking drugs. While I am supportive of the amendments tonight, they may need some revision at Further Consideration Stage in order to provide a workable way forward. However, I want to work with the Member and his colleagues to find a way through so that we can implement the legislation in such a way that the police have the resources to enforce it and it is meaningful in its outcomes.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Minister.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. Having just listened to the Minister's contribution, I understand that one reason why we have a legal limit for alcohol is that alcohol is a legal substance. There are prescription drugs and so on, but should it not be the case with illegal drugs that any amount detected should be treated as illegal and therefore prosecutable?

Mr Dunne: Thank you.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dunne: Do you wish to —?

Mrs Long: I do not want to debate through the Member, but I am happy to —.

Mr Dunne: Go for it one more time, if you want.

Mrs Long: Thank you. Of course that is the case, and that is why we do not have prescribed limits: the presence of any illegal drug an offence. The challenge is to link it, in a way that is compliant with the law, with saying that that has, in some way, interfered with a person's capacity to drive the car. That is where it becomes more difficult, and I want to bottom it out with the Members involved so that we are able to implement it in a meaningful way.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister and the Member for their interventions and their input. The Minister makes a valid point that there are challenges — I accept and appreciate that — but there is also an opportunity. As the Minister says, we can work with partner agencies. There is evidence and we all know that, where drug testing by the police is in place, there is a strong record of people testing positive for drug use. That is alarming and reinforces the need for us to do what we are doing in strengthening our legislation to bring drug testing into line with alcohol testing.

We all know — it has already been touched on — about the ever-growing scourge that drugs are across our society and, ultimately, the danger that they have become. As was mentioned, that has come on to our roads, making them even more dangerous places for us, our friends and families and those whom we represent. I firmly believe that this is an opportunity to make drug testing on our roads an automatic and routine safeguard rather than a discretionary power, the use of which may depend on subjective thresholds or subsequent developments or circumstances. Making drug testing mandatory where a traffic offence or an accident occurs and making it a more common, routine practice is worthwhile and something that we can all get behind.

Drug testing should be an automatic and routine part of any investigative process rather than a discretionary power, and amending legislation to that effect will ensure that police have access to all relevant evidence from the outset and that families across Northern Ireland are never left with unanswered questions at what is, obviously, such a traumatic time.

Amendment No 74 will bring drug testing at authorised checkpoints into line with breath testing at authorised checkpoints under the current legislation. That will be an important tool to help the police prevent drug-driving on our roads, which, as we know, can have devastating consequences. Amendment No 75 seeks to further strengthen and bring clarity and consistency to that important issue. Under the provision in amendment No 75, a preliminary test "must" be administered if, as referenced in paragraphs (4) and (5) of article 17 of the 1995 Order, a traffic offence is committed, or, indeed, an accident occurs. The amendment is also important for confidence in our justice system, which depends on consistency, thoroughness and clarity.

An important change of wording that is made through the amendments is that from "may" to "must" where paragraphs (4) and (5) of article 17 of the existing Road Traffic Order 1995 apply, which will remove any grey area, as my colleague Mr Frew referred to it, around the use of discretion. That is vital for victims and their families.

I have engaged with organisations in a number of sectors, including the PSNI and Road Safe NI, the charity that does sterling work on such issues. It, too, has lent its support to the amendments, which I welcome. That group does a lot of important work with schoolchildren and young people, and I am pleased that they support the two amendments. My colleague Julie Middleton works closely with David Jackson from the charity, which operates across Northern Ireland, including in the area of the north-west that Julie Middleton proudly represents.

I encourage Members to consider the amendments carefully. I commend them to the House and trust that they will be supported. There will be an opportunity, which the Minister alluded to, for further development work to ensure that any issues are worked through and that the provisions in the amendments can be utilised and delivered in the most effective way.

I also support amendment No 90, tabled by Paul Frew, Patsy McGlone and Nuala McAllister, on the misuse of e-scooters and similar, motorcycle-like vehicles. It is becoming an increasingly significant issue right across Northern Ireland, including in my consistency of North Down. Constituents regularly raise concerns about the reckless and illegal use of e-scooters and scramblers on our roads, footpaths and parks and, indeed, in built-up, residential areas. What may appear to some as a nuisance can quickly become a serious public safety issue. I know that others have mentioned the serious issue of injuries and worse in recent days. I appreciate that the role and growth of e-scooters is a relatively new issue. Today is an important opportunity to ensure that the legislation is agile in order to reflect new realities and concerns that come forward.

We see e-scooters being used on public roads by individuals, who are often young people, as has been referenced, with no licence, no insurance, little or no understanding of road safety and, in many cases, no regard whatsoever for any form of the Highway Code. Pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are all being placed at unnecessary risk as a result of that. Many residents — particularly older people and families with young children — feel intimidated when such vehicles are driven recklessly through areas that are intended for public use. We see regular enforcement — I appreciate that this is through the Department for Infrastructure — when, for example, vehicles are parked in our town and city centres. Somebody can get a ticket if they are parked 10 minutes over the limit in a parking bay, yet we currently see little or no enforcement on the use of e-scooters. Again, the amendment will strengthen the enforcement tools available to agencies and improve public safety for all. Communities have the right to enjoy their neighbourhoods safely and without fear of injury or, indeed, antisocial behaviour.

I welcome the amendment No 90, because the current requirement for police officers to issue a warning before seizing an illegally used e-scooter or scrambler can act as an unnecessary barrier to effective enforcement. Through the removal of that requirement, the Police Service will be better equipped to take swift action where dangerous or unlawful behaviour is taking place. It is about ensuring that the police have the practical powers necessary to tackle misuse. The word "misuse" is very important. It is not about the use of electronic scooters; it is about their misuse. That should be a key focus of the amendment. It is about protecting the public and allowing the police to respond effectively to growing concerns in our communities. It is a sensible, proportionate and common-sense measure that strengthens powers and improves public safety. It also sends a clear message that the Assembly is listening to our communities and that the misuse of e-scooters and scramblers will not be tolerated. I am therefore very pleased to support amendment No 90. I commend those Members who have worked collaboratively to bring it forward today.

I trust that all the amendments in group 5 will be supported, including amendment Nos 74 and 75, to which I am very proud to put my name. Hopefully, they will progress, and the legislation will become known as Jaidyn's law, which would be a fitting tribute to Jaidyn Rice from Bangor, who just last year sadly lost her life aged 16.

Ms Egan: I felt compelled to stand up today and make some remarks on the amendments moved by my colleagues across the Chamber that propose legislative changes on testing for drug consumption among those driving motor vehicles on our roads. When you talk to the everyday person in our constituencies and ask them what they want to see from us as elected representatives, often one of the answers is, "Fix the roads, make them better and make them safer". That rings particularly true for our communities in North Down following the devastating and tragic loss of 16-year-old Jaidyn Rice, who was killed by a driver in July last year. Jaidyn was a wonderful young woman whose passion and determination for bettering the world around her continue to shine out of everyone who met her and who now speaks of her. Her family and loved ones are in my thoughts today as we work together to ensure that these proposals are as watertight and practicable as possible. These amendments, if successful, would provide police officers with additional tools for investigating crime and prevent further serious and fatal incidents from happening in the first place.

From the outset, I really welcome the intention behind this. Last year, the PSNI ran a winter campaign on drink- and drug-driving that saw over 100 drivers under the influence arrested in the first 15 days alone. Those drivers' lack of concern for the safety of others and themselves is shocking.

It is my understanding that amendment No 74 inserts a new clause into the Road Traffic Order 1995 to give the PSNI powers to run an authorised checkpoint drugs test, making it an offence for a person not to cooperate "without reasonable excuse". Whilst my party and I intend to support that and the other amendments listed, I want to raise concerns about some potential unintended consequences that could leave officers open to criticism or challenge. For example, article 17CB(6) references "reasonable excuse". We would like to know what defines "reasonable" on the ground so that the rights of those at the scene and the officers administering those tests know their duties. I would be open to a response to that if the proposers would like to intervene on their intentions behind that, or perhaps they could provide clarification in later remarks.

I also note that amendment No 75 continues in the same thread, editing article 17 of the Road Traffic Order 1995 to move the PSNI away from having the "power to administer preliminary tests" if an officer on the ground reasonably suspects that a traffic offence or accident has occurred by the person driving or trying to drive a motor vehicle to, instead, an officer having a legal duty. Again, we have to ensure that the standards that we put in legislation can be fully and realistically met at this time. I am not saying that it is not possible, but in the spirit of creating clear legislation, I would appreciate it if the Members could tell us about any engagement they have had with the PSNI on conducting preliminary drug testing and what their intentions are in relation to the amendment.

That said, we have to do everything possible to ensure safety on our roads. That includes doing everything possible to prevent the harm that can happen from drugs. In that spirit, and in the spirit of ensuring no further delay to important steps being taken, Alliance will support the amendments, though we wait in anticipation for the Further Consideration Stage and the development of information from bodies, such as the Department for Infrastructure and the PSNI, on what is practically needed in order to commence the amendments.

I also add my support to the amendment tabled by Members from different parties that amends requirements under the Criminal Justice Order 2008 relating to the seizure of vehicles that are being used to cause "alarm, distress or annoyance" to others. E-scooters are not toys. They have the potential to create serious harm, including risk to life, and, unfortunately, we have seen that in Northern Ireland in recent weeks. It is an issue that I and, I am sure, all Members have received contact on through our constituency offices. The unruly and dangerous usage of e-scooters is becoming more common. Those using them often put themselves, other road users and pedestrians in danger. I welcome the amendment's goal in giving the PSNI more tools to tackle reckless behaviour on our roads and footpaths.

Mr Bradley: I rise as a member of the Justice Committee to support amendment Nos 74, 75 and 90. I would like to make one thing clear: anyone who drives while impaired by drugs poses a serious danger to themselves and others. Road safety must always be a priority, and the police should have the necessary tools to remove dangerous drivers from our roads.

I support the introduction of drug-testing powers comparable to those that currently exist for drink-driving, whether on suspicion of impaired or erratic driving or following a road traffic collision.

My support for the amendments is rooted not only in principle but in personal experience. Twenty-five years ago, at 2.00 am on 31 March 2001, I received the devastating news that my cousin Jill Bradley had been killed by a drunk driver. Jill was 22 years old. She was an only child and had recently graduated. She was looking forward to beginning her career as a primary-school teacher. She was a beautiful young woman with natural blonde ringlets that many Irish dancers spend considerable amounts of money trying to replicate, but hers were completely natural. Twenty-five years later, it is still raw. When I visit her parents, her photograph still hangs on the wall. There remains an empty place at the family table that has never been filled. That tragedy was caused by drink-driving.

The consequences of drug-impaired driving are no different. The grief experienced by families who lose loved ones is exactly the same. We cannot afford to lose more young lives because we failed to act.

We cannot afford to lose anyone because we did not equip the law enforcement agencies with the appropriate powers to tackle impairment on our roads.

Increasingly, concerns are being raised that some approaches to roadside drug testing risk treating law-abiding motorists as though they are guilty until proven innocent. For many people, being stopped, tested, questioned and potentially detained can feel intimidating and humiliating. There are legitimate concerns about false positives and the detection of substances that remain in a person's system long after the impairment effects have worn off. The objective must be to improve road safety, not to create an atmosphere in which responsible motorists feel criminalised. It is essential to have clear operational guidelines, rigorous standards for testing equipment, comprehensive officer training and robust safeguards for those who believe that they have been wrongly accused. The public's trust depends not only on effective enforcement but on fairness and accountability. The vast majority of motorists are responsible individuals. They simply travel to work, take their children to school, visit their family and friends and go about their business. They deserve protection from dangerous drivers, but they also deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

I also wish to address an issue that is becoming a growing problem on our roads and pavements: the increasing use of e-scooters and the dangers that they present to the public. Only last week, while driving through Coleraine, I observed four young men on e-scooters. They were using police no-waiting signs as makeshift seats, and not one of them was wearing a helmet. A few weeks before that, at the corner of Park Street and Church Street, I nearly walked into an e-scooter that was carrying three young girls. Thankfully, they were not travelling at an excessive speed and they managed to maintain control of the scooter.

Those incidents highlight the significant gap between awareness and regulation. A person who rides a bicycle is expected to wear a helmet. Cyclists cannot legally ride through pedestrian zones or on footpaths in any circumstances, yet there remains considerable confusion about the use of e-scooters, particularly those that are privately owned. Currently, privately owned scooters cannot legally be used on public roads, pavements or cycle lanes in Northern Ireland. Despite that, many individuals continue to use them in public spaces and are often unaware that they may be breaking the law. That lack of understanding creates difficulties for enforcement and uncertainty for the public.

The risk associated with e-scooter use cannot be ignored. They are capable of travelling at speeds exceeding 45 mph or more, and, when operated on busy pavements, they pose serious dangers to pedestrians, especially older people, young children and those with visual impairments. Many users fail to wear protective equipment, which increases the risk of a serious injury. Across the United Kingdom, emergency departments have reported increasing numbers of injuries relating to e-scooters, from fractures to life-threatening head traumas.

The infrastructure presents another challenge. Northern Ireland's roads were not designed for e-scooters. Potholes, uneven surfaces and narrow pavements increase the likelihood of accidents. Without dedicated infrastructure or clear regulations, e-scooter riders are forced to share spaces with pedestrians and motorists, which creates hazards for everyone.

There are also concerns about accountability and insurance. Unlike cars and motorcycles, many e-scooters are operated without insurance, which leaves the victims potentially facing difficulties when trying to obtain compensation after an accident has occurred.

The same concerns apply to scramblers and other off-road vehicles when they are used irresponsibly in public spaces. When misused, they present a significant danger to the wider community.

That is not to say that e-scooters have no place in Northern Ireland. They may well form part of a more sustainable transport system in the future. However, before wider adoption can be considered, there must be comprehensive legislation, clear safety standards, appropriate infrastructure and effective public education.

The convenience of emerging technologies should never come at the expense of public safety. Ultimately, we must reject the false choice between road safety and civil liberties. We can support robust action against drug-impaired driving while insisting that enforcement measures remain fair, proportionate and just. We can embrace innovation in transport while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect all road users and scooter users. Protecting the public should never mean abandoning the principles of fairness on which our society is built. Equally, safeguarding individual rights should never prevent us from taking the necessary action to prevent tragedy on our roads. For those reasons, I support amendments Nos 74, 75 and 90.

Mr Brooks: Like many of those who have spoken before me, I will first speak to amendments Nos 74 and 75, and then I will turn to amendment No 90 that my colleague Mr Frew worked cross-party to draft, and which will increase the powers to confiscate e-scooters and scramblers, which is particularly relevant to my constituency.

Amendment Nos 74 and 75 are practical, proportionate and potentially life-saving measures that are designed to tackle the growing threat of drug-driving on our roads. Amendment No 74 would allow a constable on duty at an authorised checkpoint to require a driver to cooperate with a roadside drugs test through providing a saliva sample. As has been said, that, in essence, places drug-driving testing on a similar footing to the breath tests that have become a routine and accepted part of drink-driving enforcement. For decades, society at large has recognised that alcohol impairs judgement, slows reaction times and puts lives at risk. Many of us will remember the startling and impactful adverts over the years. I remember them even from my childhood. There was a shift in culture as people realised the dangers that drink-driving — driving under the influence of an alcoholic substance — posed not only to the driver but to communities, pedestrians and other innocent road users.

That recognition and cultural change has been backed up by robust roadside enforcement. Drugs can be equally dangerous, however, and, in some cases, even more so, yet our enforcement powers have not always kept pace. My colleague's story about his relative will have touched many across the Chamber. We hope that the measures in the amendments will lead to fewer such situations in future. Amendment No 74 would address that imbalance by providing our police officers with a straightforward screening tool at checkpoints, thus sending a clear message that drug-driving is every bit as unacceptable as drink-driving and, in future, will be just as likely to be detected and punished. It is about giving the police the ability to identify, before tragedy occurs, those who may be driving under the influence of illegal or impairing substances.

Amendment No 75 is equally important. As has been stated, at present, when a driver is stopped for reckless or dangerous driving or has been involved in a collision causing injury or death, a degree of discretion remains as to whether a drug test is administered. The amendment would remove that discretion and require testing in those circumstances, which is entirely reasonable. If a driver is suspected of reckless driving, there is a legitimate public interest in establishing whether drugs were a factor. If a collision occurs in which someone has been injured or killed, families deserve to know that every possible line of enquiry has been pursued. Mandatory testing in such circumstances would protect the integrity of investigations, ensure consistency of enforcement and remove any perception that testing might vary from one officer or one area to another. It would also protect police officers by providing them with a clear statutory requirement rather than leaving it up to them to make difficult judgement calls in what can be highly stressful situations. Other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom have significantly strengthened their approach to drug-driving. Police officers now routinely use roadside saliva-testing devices, and drug-driving laws were specifically reformed to make enforcement more effective. The objective was simple: to bring drug-driving enforcement closer to the model that has proven successful in tackling drink-driving. The result has been a clearer framework for police and a stronger deterrent for motorists.

Members will be familiar, not least through the contributions from my colleagues, particularly Stephen Dunne, about what has become known as Jaidyn's law, which we hope amendment No 75 will bring into effect. Calls for such a law emerged following the tragic death of Jaidyn Rice and the subsequent campaign by her family for the introduction of tougher road safety measures. I commend that family for their campaign, and I commend my colleagues Stephen Dunne and the Chair of the Justice Committee for working on the amendment. The principle is very clear: when serious collisions occur, particularly those that involve death or serious injury, there should be mandatory testing of drivers so that evidence is gathered immediately, thus enabling families to have confidence that no question has been left unanswered.

The relevance of Jaidyn's law to amendment No 75 is clear. Both are founded on the belief that, where the consequences are grave, testing should be automatic rather than optional. The law should not rely on chance, discretion or inconsistency when the stakes are so high. The amendment is not about being anti-driver. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of drivers would feel safer on our roads as a result of its being made. Rather, it is anti-drug misuse and pro-road safety. The measures are about protecting innocent road users, pedestrians, cyclists and passengers and about giving our police the tools that they need. They are about ensuring that enforcement provides sufficient deterrence and accountability and that, when serious incidents occur, the truth can be established quickly and fairly. Every Member wants safer roads. Every Member wants fewer families to receive devastating news from the police at their front door. Although amendment Nos 74 and 75 would not eliminate drug-driving overnight, they represent a sensible, evidence-based step that would improve enforcement, strengthen deterrence and ultimately save lives.

I thank the Minister for the clarification that she granted in response to my intervention in my colleague's speech earlier. For all those reasons, I commend both those amendments to the House.

I will move on to an issue that has been hugely prevalent and a torment to residents, community workers and, indeed, police in my constituency, and it has been a focus of my work over the past months and, indeed, couple of years: the misuse of scramblers and e-scooters. I welcome the amendment that would allow police to confiscate those scooters and scramblers without warning, and I commend my colleague Paul Frew and Members from other parties, Patsy and Nuala, whom he worked with to bring it forward. It is a sensible and necessary measure that addresses a real problem that communities across Northern Ireland experience daily. Indeed, while I and some others have been talking about it for a while, we can see, through social media videos, the 'Peelers: The PSNI for Real' TV show and, no doubt, increasing issues in constituency offices, that the dangerous and antisocial misuse of e-scooters and scramblers is now a matter that few of us do not deal with regularly.

I congratulate the PSNI in north Belfast on its recent haul of Sur-Ron e-scramblers, which I saw on its Facebook page. I know that their east Belfast colleagues have had a number of successes on that front recently too. I hope that we see many more such posts. I wish them every success in their efforts. However, I also know that they operate within a system that often seems to put barriers in their way rather than enabling them to act. For too long, residents have had to endure those vehicles being driven recklessly through housing estates, down greenways and in parks and public spaces. Parents worry about children playing outside. Elderly residents fear using footpaths. People who are simply trying to walk to the shops or enjoy a local park should not have to dodge vehicles being ridden in a manner that is dangerous, intimidating and, in many cases, completely unlawful.

That is before we take into account, as, I am sure, the Justice Minister is well aware, that it is not merely a matter of antisocial behaviour or kids larking about. In our constituency is concerned, those vehicles are used in the supply of drugs. The greenway — much lauded as a success in our constituency — has been described to me by police and community representatives as a "highway" for such supplies, where those who use the vehicles are secure in the knowledge that the police lack the powers and abilities to chase them effectively, particularly on the greenways.

The amendment is not revolutionary. It does not create new offences or introduce sweeping new powers. It removes an unnecessary obstacle to effective enforcement by allowing the PSNI to seize the vehicles immediately where legal grounds exist, rather than having to first issue a warning. At a time when it seems as though the odds are stacked too heavily in favour of the perpetrators, where we have seen them actively goad PSNI officers, every little helps to rebalance the scales in favour of our police force. That is a practical step in the right direction. If a vehicle is being used illegally and dangerously, common sense suggests that officers should be able to act there and then. A system that requires warnings before action can be taken risks allowing offenders to evade consequences and undermines confidence in enforcement. Therefore, I support that amendment wholeheartedly.

While supporting it, however, we must also be honest and acknowledge that it is only a step in the right direction. I know that the proposer knows that. The scale of the problem requires us to think more broadly and ambitiously. This is not the time to debate it more fully, but we do need to look at powers to go further when dealing with repeat offenders and serious misuse. That will probably require stand-alone legislation. At present, in many cases, an individual whose vehicle has been confiscated can pay a relatively modest fee and recover it. For some, that has become little more than an inconvenience rather than a deterrent. That cannot be right. We should consider powers that allow for the permanent deprivation of a vehicle where an individual has been responsible for the dangerous, reckless or persistent misuse of that vehicle. There is strong public interest in ensuring that, if someone demonstrates repeatedly that they cannot use a vehicle responsibly, they simply do not have it handed back to them a short period later.

Alongside stronger powers, we need better operational capability. While I will not go deeply into that, the Minister will have heard me speak about the need for drone teams and for those drones to be accessible to police officers when they are needed rather than having to be booked in advance. I understand that that requires additional resource. However, it is necessary, given the problems that we have seen on the greenway and in other places where police do not currently have the ability to give chase.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking the intervention. Does he agree that one of the challenges, which I hope to reflect on later this evening, is that the police, in trying to apprehend people using the scooters, which, by their very nature, are quite mobile, have to make a call on whether they want to pursue, in most cases, the young folk on the scooters? By its very nature, that can have consequences not only for the police officers but for the young person who is fleeing on the e-scooter. Does the Member recognise that problem in his constituency? It is certainly current in mine.

Mr Brooks: I certainly recognise that in my constituency. Not only do I recognise it in my constituency, but police officers routinely talk to me about it. It is not even that they have to think too much about it: it is fundamentally so dangerous not only for the person on the bike but for other users of the paths or greenways or roads that the police are not able to give chase in that way. In a minority of circumstances, they will have been able to chase the perpetrator, but, too often, that is not the case. They also speak about wanting to see mandatory registration at the point of sale.

I come to something else that the Member was talking about. A police officer who had experience working in England contacted me recently. They communicated that officers in GB have benefited from the enactment of sections 5 and 6 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. In practice, that means that, instead of an investigation being judged against the driving of a careful and competent driver, they are more recently judged against that of a careful constable who has undertaken the same prescribed training, which better takes into account their level of training and the context in which they are asked to protect the public good. While that is not directly relevant — I understand that the Deputy Speaker may be indulging me in that regard — I encourage the Minister to look into that.

Returning to the amendment and those on whom it may impact, I recognise that some become frustrated when the issue is discussed — e-scooters, in particular — and sometimes feel that e-scooters are demonised and that they do not always act irresponsibly. Many people purchase e-scooters because they see them as a practical means of transport. They want to use an affordable way to travel to and from work, or they want that solution for short journeys. My colleague talked about sustainable travel, which we have often encouraged and what is often referred to as "the last mile" of their commute. I understand that perspective, but the reality is that, under the current law, the use of privately owned e-scooters on public roads and footpaths is illegal. That is the legal position. At the same time, when enforcement is lax, it is hardly surprising that such use has become normalised. People see others using those vehicles every day without consequence and, understandably, conclude that the rules are not being enforced.

That brings me to a final point, again slightly outside the scope of today's Bill: it is long since time that the Department for Infrastructure engaged seriously on the issue. The current approach of effectively doing nothing may save that Department from immediate hassle, but it does not serve everyone well. It does not serve well those who wish to use the vehicles legitimately for short commutes and sustainable travel, nor does it serve pedestrians, families and vulnerable road users, who have to contend with the dangers created by unregulated and unlawful use. The Department should look to putting a framework in place that asks the following questions. What should the age limits be? How should those vehicles be allowed to operate? What safety equipment should be required, and what standards of training and insurance should be necessary? Those are important questions, and they, too, deserve answers.

Today, however, we are dealing with the more immediate issue. The amendment would provide the PSNI with a more effective tool to tackle behaviour that is already illegal and already causing harm in our communities. For that reason, I am pleased to support it. I thank my colleague for tabling it, and I encourage Members to support it.

Mr McCrossan: On behalf of the SDLP, I rise in support of amendment Nos 74, 75 and 90. I agree with Members across the House that we must act in the strongest possible terms to tackle the real issue: the scourge of drunk- and drug-driving in our community. Behind all the numbers, statistics and debates, it is very much a human story, because choices that individuals have made to get behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated under the influence of drugs or alcohol have changed the lives of countless families for ever. That is at the heart of the entire debate.

There are some very simple questions. Are we, as an Assembly, doing enough to prevent tragedy? Can we do more? Are we doing enough to deter people from breaking the law and acting so recklessly that they put their lives and others' lives at risk? For too long, families with whom I have engaged on this important issue have said no. Too often, our laws and our enforcement model operate after the damage — the collision, the serious injury or, unfortunately, in many instances, the death — has been done and a family's world has entirely collapsed. The purpose of the law should not simply be to punish after a tragedy but to protect human life where it can. That is why the amendments deserve strong consideration and support.

Amendment No 74 introduces powers for "Drugs testing at authorised check-points". That means that, under proper authorisation and safeguards, the police would be able to require motorists who are stopped at checkpoints to cooperate with roadside drugs testing. That represents a significant shift from the current position, where testing is generally tied to suspicion and there is an element of discretion, often based on observation or signs of impairment, which is not always reliable, depending on the resilience of the individual when it comes to intoxication. Under this change to the legislation, authorised operations could proactively screen drivers in designated circumstances, creating more visible and consistent enforcement presence and adding to the necessary awareness of the fact that our Police Service is on the ball on the issue.

Amendment No 75 goes further and introduces a duty to administer preliminary tests where, of course, the legal conditions are met. Rather than leaving testing solely to discretion, it establishes a clear expectation that officers will carry out roadside testing when statutory thresholds are satisfied. That creates greater consistency in enforcement, reduces the risk of missed interventions and helps to ensure that similar cases are treated in similar ways across different areas. Those are important considerations, because they recognise that the current framework has its limitations and the cost is just too great. At present, as I said, much of enforcement relies on observation, often meaning that police need to have pulled in a person whose impairment is visible or about whom they have a reasonable suspicion. There are too many gaps in that, and, unfortunately, too many have fallen between two stools. The amendments move the law towards earlier intervention and a more preventative model, for which the PSNI and, indeed, countless families have campaigned for many years. Such a model identifies risk before harm occurs rather than relying on evidence gathered after a serious incident has occurred.

Drug-driving is different, because drug impairment is not always visible; indeed, there is a need for wider education in society generally about picking up on the signs of someone being intoxicated by drugs. Often, depending on the drugs that a person has consumed, they can appear calm, relaxed and normal. They can convince themselves that they are capable of driving, in some instances, but their judgement most certainly can be impaired, their reaction times slowed and their decision-making affected. When that happens behind the wheel of a moving vehicle, the consequences can be and have been catastrophic. I have said many times on the public record that any individual who gets behind the wheel of a car while under the influence of alcohol or intoxicated by drugs needs to appreciate that that car quickly becomes a weapon — a weapon that has claimed countless lives, left others seriously injured and had profound consequences for the person responsible. We cannot continue to rely on hoping that somebody appears to be impaired. The amendments move us away from that, and they are welcome. The key thing is that, if the amendments are made and come into effect and people know that they can be stopped and tested at authorised checkpoints, we will find that that will become a deterrent in itself, and people will think twice before taking that reckless and unnecessary action.

Let us be honest about another failing. Dangerous attitudes remain among some that drug-driving is somehow less dangerous than drink-driving. That needs to be challenged at the earliest possible stage. We need to create greater awareness of the dangers of getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated. We should be having those conversations with our young people of school age. Some believe that they can get away with drug-driving because it is harder to detect, that it is easier to explain away or that, when somebody is not visibly intoxicated, the risk is somehow lower. Clearly, the House, along with countless families that have suffered the worst possible consequences, has said that it is not. Impairment is impairment. All too often, a family receives a knock on the door — many have — and that family does not ask whether alcohol or drugs caused it, because the outcome is the same: they have lost someone so precious to them. Lives have been changed and families devastated.

Before I focus on amendment No 90, it is important that I relate something from my constituency. It is an important case that relates directly to the debate. The Minister kindly mentioned it in the House, as Ciara Ferguson did earlier. It is the case of Enda Dolan. It is a human story. Imagine a young student of 18 years of age from Killyclogher near Omagh, a few weeks into attending university in Belfast, walking up the Malone Road to his student accommodation and probably just off the phone to his parents, checking in. He was struck by a van driven by David Lee Stewart. It turned out that the driver of the van had not only been drinking heavily but had a substantial amount of drugs in his system. He struck Enda and carried that young lad 800 yards on top of his vehicle before braking and pulling his body from the van.

Stewart was jailed, and rightly so. The family led a powerful campaign, and the Minister heard it, as did the previous Justice Minister. The family were listened to because they spoke out clearly about how the system had failed them and how a young lad who was starting out on his life, attending university, trying to improve his circumstances and seeking out opportunities had been struck down through no fault of his own. Enda did not have a choice, but the driver of that van did. When he attended the licensed premises that he was in, he made the choice to drink 13 alcoholic beverages — multiple pints, shots and spirits. He made the choice to have a cocktail of drugs in his system, including traces of cocaine, benzodiazepines and cannabis. He made the choice when he got into that van and drove down that road. He may not have intended to hit anybody — he certainly did not intend to take Enda Dolan's life — but those were the consequences of his reckless, selfish action.

That is the human story. That is why the Bill and the amendments are important. That is why the Sentencing Bill introduced by the Justice Minister, Naomi Long, is also important. The legislation will save lives. However, there is wider work that we must do to create greater awareness among our population of the serious consequences of getting into any vehicle when you are not in control. You cannot bring Enda Dolan or Jaidyn Rice back. Countless other families, many in my constituency, have spoken to me about how, they feel, the system failed them.

When Enda Dolan's case eventually got to court, the perpetrator was sentenced to seven years: three and a half to be served in jail and three and a half on licence. The family were absolutely furious and rightly made the legitimate point that Enda had not had a choice whereas David Lee Stewart did.

At the Court of Appeal, it was decided that that unduly lenient sentence should be increased. Ultimately, the Dolans felt that their voices were heard. There was public outrage. In order to supplement the important changes in the Justice Bill, the Sentencing Bill will be critical to ensuring that there is an increase in the sentences for those who cause death or serious injury as a result of driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I pay tribute to the Dolan family. They have waited for a long time for legislation such as this. It is positive. When Members work together and go through the necessary processes, life-changing legislation can be created.

I thank my colleague and others for tabling amendment No 90. It, too, is a very important amendment and has my full support. I live in and represent a rural constituency. While I am very aware of e-scooters and the dangers that they pose, we do not see the same concentration of them as some of the urban centres around Belfast and other areas do. However, I see young fellas in particular going out on e-scooters on country roads on which it is dangerous to walk, let alone go on an e-scooter. They are exceptionally speedy; I could not believe it when I witnessed the speed of them. It is important that, more widely, we create greater awareness among our young people about the real need to be conscious of the dangers of our roads.

I ask the House to support all three of the amendments in the group.

Mrs Middleton: I rise to speak in full support of the introduction of Jaidyn's law, which is an amendment of crucial importance to all in Northern Ireland. I did not know Jaidyn Rice personally, but her name will for ever be burnt on my heart. Jaidyn was 16 years old when she lost her life at the hands of a driver. She was described as:

While Jaidyn's life was cruelly stolen from her at the hands of an irresponsible driver while she was out walking, her legacy and light will, all being well, live on today and every day through this process, particularly if we make the effort to work together at this stage to make meaningful changes so that the legislation makes sense when it passes its Final Stage.

Road safety is an issue that affects us all. I do not think that I need to say that, but, on the basis that the general public sometimes watch what we say, we need to get that message across. Whether you are a driver, a pedestrian, a passenger or a cyclist, it is imperative that our laws are tied up, robust when it comes to road safety and, most important, put the lives of our citizens first. We all know that one life lost is one too many.

Yesterday, my colleague Paul Frew remarked that we have a real opportunity to change law for the better. I accept that I am a new MLA, but I found that really inspiring. When we have community members, bereaved families and amazing road safety charities, such as, to name only two, Life After and Road Safe NI, outlining the need for legislative change, it is our duty to listen, work together and act decisively. Jaidyn's law is a necessity for our legal framework. It will strengthen the existing laws around the recklessness that is drug-driving.

Members, you will be well aware that it is already against the law to take copious amounts of drugs — drugs in any case — jump behind the wheel of a car and drive it.

If people have consumed drugs, they are unfit to drive. It is reckless to choose to drive in such circumstances. Should Jaidyn's law become law after the Bill's Final Stage, it will be mandatory to test for drug use when a road traffic collision or a road traffic accident has taken place. That is a welcome step forward in our pursuit of eliminating or, at the very least, lowering the number of road-related deaths and the number of people injured or seriously injured in Northern Ireland. Members, if our primary duty is to improve the lives of all those who live in Northern Ireland, what better protection can we offer them than to do all that we can to better our legislation for road users?

It is my genuine hope that the implementation of Jaidyn's law will prevent death and serious injury at the hands of those who foolishly take drugs and drive.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I know that she is a parent. Does she agree that there is no call that any parent fears more than one from the police to say that their son or daughter had been killed, which is exactly what the families of Jaidyn and Enda faced, and that that is one more reason that we have to have this law in Northern Ireland?

Mrs Middleton: I thank the Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree. Sadly, through many years of working alongside road safety organisations, I have heard such stories from families, from all communities, who have had their lives torn apart. It becomes their daily reality. It is not their past or a moment of sorrow but something that they have to live with every day. As a parent, I am conscious of the position of my child when we walk on the street and of where other drivers are when they are around me. I am sure that many Members feel the same.

Work will be needed should the amendment pass at Consideration Stage. We can make tangible changes at Further Consideration Stage. Drug-driving is similar to drink-driving, in that it can leave a person unfit to drive. It often leads the driver to lack sound cognitive, auditory or visual ability. It causes an increase in risk-taking behaviour and a lowering of good decision-making processes. In a car or any other vehicle, that is a lethal combination, because people are operating what can only be described as a moving vehicle that can cause serious harm not just to one life but to a family's life forever. Drivers' attentiveness, their perception of time and speed and their critical judgement skills can, more often than not, be seriously affected when they make the choice to use drugs whilst driving. Although, sadly, we cannot undo the terrible pain that those who have lost someone continue to live with daily, we can insist that the amendment be brought in as a serious deterrent. If people choose to get into a vehicle under the influence of drugs and are involved in an RTA or an RTC, testing will be mandatory. What a message to send. Surely that should cause those who are thinking of doing so — I will speak colloquially here — to catch themselves on. I am sure that all our citizens would rather wise up than live with the lifelong guilt of knowing that they had taken a life and ruined a family and a community forever.

Members, I have to be honest and say that the more that I read about Jaidyn's law, the more aghast that I am that mandatory drug testing at an RTC or an RTA is not already part of our legal framework. I am glad that we are debating amendment No 75 today. I thank all those who have been involved in the process. I am thankful that we have had the time to discuss the issue today. Should we see the amendment pass, we will be able to witness a change that is long overdue for many families. It will send a signal that, when MLAs work together, we can show how much we care, individually and collectively, and that we are behind the people when it comes to the fundamental issue of justice.

Let us be clear that we are working through this legislation in the memory of 16-year-old Jaidyn Rice and all victims of drug-drivers. We have a clear case for bringing about change, spurred on by Jaidyn's family, who have channelled their unimaginable grief into a campaign for clarity, consistency and the protection of other families and people on our roads, and for every pedestrian on our streets.

Current legislation leaves too much space for chance — the chance that someone will not be tested and caught; the chance that justice will not be served; the chance that there will be nothing to deter; the chance that another person will jump into their vehicle having taken drugs and will kill or seriously injure someone. Those are chances that we cannot afford to take. Under our existing systems, drug testing following a serious road traffic collision is not always automatic — we know that, and that is what we are discussing — but that creates a dangerous gap in the investigative process. If we are serious about road safety, we must ensure that the true picture, irrespective of what it may be, is always shown and that justice can be pursued with the same scrutiny and consistency.

When a family loses a loved one on the roads, they deserve to know that the investigation was thorough. They should not be left questioning whether a potential factor in the collision, such as drug impairment, was fully explored. Jaidyn's law will provide us with the peace of mind that the legal system is doing everything in its power to establish the facts. The justice system should not rely on discretionary decisions at the scene of a tragedy. Mandatory testing removes ambiguity and ensures that the PSNI has the tools that it needs to build robust cases. It ensures that no driver evades justice due to a lack of evidence regarding impairment. Yet, because those substances are not always as easily detected as alcohol at the roadside, they often remain a hidden danger, and we need to make sure that that is not the case any more.

The amendment, all being well, will close the loophole. It is practical, evidence-based and a step towards modernising our approach to road safety. Should we move forward with making drug testing mandatory at the scene of an RTA or RTC that involves death or life-changing injuries, we will be sending a clear, non-negotiable message that driving while impaired will be detected, and it will be prosecuted. That would act as a powerful deterrent to reckless behaviour.

Today, we can ensure that Jaidyn's legacy is one of real and lasting change. We can build a road safety framework that prioritises the lives of road users and pedestrians alike. The amendment is not just about policy; it is about life and death, and I urge all Members to support Jaidyn's law fully.

Mr Martin: I have listened intently to some really great speeches during this important debate, and it has certainly been of a high quality.

I will speak briefly on my support for amendment No 90 and then turn to amendment Nos 74 and 75. I imagine that Members and, most importantly, the users of e-scooters, which are obviously the subject of amendment No 90, are patently aware of the challenges that face police officers when trying to apprehend those users, as chases sometimes evolve that can endanger the safety of the police and the individuals they are trying to apprehend. There are significant limitations in the actions that the PSNI can undertake to pursue the individuals who are on those vehicles. Offenders know that, at times, the police cannot really pursue them due to the risk of personal injury or injury to the users themselves.

Like many others in the Chamber, I have had contact, through my constituency office, with members of the public who have been, frankly — I will use the word because it was used in one of the many emails that I got — "tortured" by the users of such devices. People asked me to raise the matter in the Assembly, although I doubt that many of those people will be watching Assembly TV at 7.45 pm on a Tuesday. I am not sure whether 'Coronation Street' is still on; other TV programmes are available.

The police have to be empowered to take action when such vehicles are used in an antisocial way. That cannot simply be left to the police as an operational matter when they have not been given appropriate powers to act. Therefore, once the police have apprehended the offenders, they should have, in the first instance, enhanced powers to seize the e-scooters, which is exactly what amendment No 90 will allow them to do. The message will soon get through to inconsiderate users of such vehicles that they will lose their e-scooter, e-bike or e-scrambler; apparently, such things can be expensive. I reflect on the fact that amendment No 90 has cross-party support, and, therefore, I ask all Members to support it.

Amendment Nos 74 and 75 are sensible, proportionate and necessary measures to strengthen road safety across Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to my constituency colleague Stephen Dunne and to the Chair of the Committee for Justice, Paul Frew, who is wandering around the Chamber chatting to Members — I hope that Hansard got that one — who tabled the amendments.

As Members are more than acutely aware, Jaidyn Rice — my constituency colleagues Stephen and Connie referenced her, as did Julie — was just 16 years old when she was knocked down and killed on Bangor ring road in July of last year. Jaidyn was an army cadet with a very bright future. She was involved in youth and community work with the DICE Futures project in North Down, and I know that members of the North Down Community Network still feel her loss acutely.

My colleague read a quote that described Jaidyn; it is interesting that I have written down exactly the same quote. She was described as:

What a lovely thing to say as an epitaph. I will pause briefly to recognise the amazing efforts of Jaidyn's mother, Elaine, her grandmother, Judith, and the wider family, who have, rightly, been relentless in keeping the memory of Jaidyn alive. Since Jaidyn's death, Stephen and I have attended several meetings with family members, at which Elaine and Judith have made very clear their view that a change in the law is needed. I thank the Justice Minister for taking one of those meetings and the Infrastructure Minister for taking another.

Elaine and Judith are calling on the Assembly to make drug testing automatic in the case of collisions resulting in death or life-changing injury. As has been said numerous times this evening, the change could be called Jaidyn's law in memory of that very much loved and well remembered teenager from Bangor. I sincerely hope that we are successful in that regard.

At the centre of the debate on amendment Nos 74 and 75 is a straightforward but important question: are we doing enough to prevent those who have taken drugs and are therefore impaired by them from getting behind the wheel of a car and putting the lives of other people at risk? I believe that we absolutely can do more. I also believe that the amendments offer practical steps to address that challenge.

I thank the Justice Minister for her comments on the assessment of effects, in answer to a question from one of my colleagues on the individuals concerned who could be tested at the roadside for those substances. In answer to those comments, she will know as well as I do that that is for Committee Stage, and, at Further Consideration Stage, those can be worked out. I believe that, with good purpose and congenial working, we can undoubtedly find a way through that.

For decades, governments and legislators across the UK have worked hard to change public attitudes to drink-driving, for example. That has been referred to on a couple of occasions even during this debate. Education and enforcement legislation made it increasingly clear that driving under the influence of alcohol is wholly unacceptable. Thirty years ago, that was not the case. Thirty years ago, people might have taken a drink, or several drinks, and got into a car and driven home, but very few do that now. Why is that? It is mainly because of a change in attitude to say that drink-driving is wrong. Some of us in the Chamber are old enough to remember the very hard-hitting TV adverts that we were exposed to during that time. They played their part, and I believe that they were successful. Today, police officers, road safety organisations and victims' groups all recognise that drug-driving poses a clear and legitimate threat to public safety. Whether the drugs involved are illegal substances, controlled drugs or strong medication taken in a manner that impairs a person's ability to drive, the consequences, as have been reflected by the Assembly, are, frankly, devastating.

The reality is — Members have noted this — that a motor vehicle in the hands of an impaired driver becomes, quite frankly, a lethal weapon. In fact, a car is a lethal weapon even when driven properly. That is why we must be so careful on our roads. When someone chooses to drive while affected by drugs, they not only take a risk with their own safety but put passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and other motor users in danger. Every family and person driving on our roads has a right to expect that those around them are fit to drive and are capable of doing so. That is why I support amendment No 74. The amendment will provide the PSNI with the power to conduct drug testing at authorised checkpoints using saliva-testing devices. It will create a framework whereby checkpoints can be established only with the written authorisation of a PSNI officer of at least inspector rank. It will also require that the locations, dates and operating times of those checkpoints be clearly specified, and it provides that testing may only be conducted by uniformed officers at that authorised checkpoint. Those are very important safeguards. As we know, legislation that is created in the Chamber must have checks and balances. I believe that the amendment is targeted and proportionate. It is not an unrestricted power. It is a carefully constructed power designed to deal with a very specific public safety concern while maintaining accountability and public confidence.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of amendment No 74 is that it addresses a very practical challenge faced by police officers. Drug impairment, as has been acknowledged in the Chamber, not least by the Justice Minister, is more difficult to identify than alcohol impairment. While alcohol can be detected through observable signs, drug impairment can be much harder to recognise. Providing officers with the ability to conduct preliminary saliva tests at authorised checkpoints gives them an effective means of identifying drivers who may be under the influence of drugs. It will also enhance PSNI capabilities and increase the likelihood that dangerous drivers will be detected before they cause harm. It will be too late in the case of Jaidyn and Enda, but not too late for others. However, the true value of the powers lies not only in detection but in deterrence. People who currently think that it is OK to take drugs, get behind the wheel of a car and drive may have to reflect on that and change their attitude.

Enforcement changes behaviour, and visible enforcement can change behaviour even more. The existence of authorised drug-testing checkpoints will send out a crystal clear message to everyone in Northern Ireland that drug-driving will be actively targeted and individuals who choose to engage in such behaviour may face serious consequences. Every collision that is prevented is a family spared grief, a victim spared injury and a community spared loss.

I will turn briefly to amendment No 75, which complements the previous amendment and strengthens it a little further. It alters the current framework that governs preliminary tests by creating a duty on constables to administer such tests in the specified circumstances that I highlighted earlier, rather than leaving the matter solely to officer discretion at the scene of an RTA. It is an important step because consistent enforcement is a key component of public confidence. The public expect road traffic laws to be applied consistently and fairly. They expect that, where circumstances indicate that testing is appropriate, action will be taken at that point. Whilst police discretion remains an important principle in many other areas of enforcement, there are circumstances where a clear statutory expectation can help with consistency and remove uncertainty.

None of us doubts that, if we were involved in a collision — I was involved in one a number of years ago — the police would get you to blow into a little device to check that you had not been drinking. The amendment will create a similar response for drug-driving. It will reduce the possibility of variation between cases and will reinforce the message that road safety legislation will be applied consistently across Northern Ireland.

Taken together, amendments Nos 74 and 75 create a coherent and balanced package of measures. One amendment provides the tools for enforcement, and the other ensures that the tools will be used effectively when the circumstances require them. Together, they strengthen our collective response, which is cross-party, to the problem of drug-driving in Northern Ireland.

I recognise that some Members may have concerns about civil liberties and personal freedom, and I am more than aware of those concerns because I take them very seriously. In this case, the vast majority of our citizens who drive do not take substantial quantities of drugs before getting behind the wheel of a car and have nothing to fear from such a test. However, such concerns should not be dismissed lightly. When the House considers granting additional powers to law enforcement, it is right that we properly examine those powers before they are granted to ensure that they are justified, proportionate, and accompanied by safeguards. The proposals in the amendments meet that test. The powers that have been proposed are not arbitrary; they are very limited in scope, subject to authorisation requirements and focused on a very specific public safety objective. The inconvenience caused to law-abiding motorists will be very minimal. In contrast to that, the potential for preventing collisions, reducing injuries and saving lives is incredibly significant. In weighing up those competing considerations, the balance falls firmly in favour of action.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that it is approaching 8.00 pm. Do you want me to wind-up my remarks?

Some Members: No.

Mr Martin: You want me to keep going. I understand.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Allow me not to hinder your efforts.

Mr Martin: I believe that colleagues are keen for me to keep going. I am only kidding. I will drop a couple of pages.

No legislation can eliminate all risk on our roads, and no amendment can guarantee that no collision will ever happen again. We know that, but, where we have the opportunity to strengthen enforcement, provide deterrence and enhance public safety through proportionate measures, surely we should do that. We can do nothing retrospectively. We cannot bring people back who have already been lost to RTAs in dreadful circumstances in Northern Ireland, but we can plan for the future and try to make that future safer and more secure. For those reasons, amendment Nos 74 and 75 are sensible, balanced and justified. They strengthen this place's response to drug-driving, support the work of the PSNI and promote consistency in enforcement. The amendments are not only the right thing to do but would provide a powerful and fitting legacy for Jaidyn Rice: safer roads in Northern Ireland. Surely everyone in the Chamber should aspire to that. I therefore urge all Members of the House to support the amendments and send a clear and unequivocal message that drug-driving has no place on the roads in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Long: After what feels like a bit of a filibuster over the last hour, I will be as brief as possible while giving Members my assurances on some of the issues that have been raised.

I am grateful to the Members for tabling these important amendments, and, while I support any measures that would make our roads safer, the amendments fall within the remit of the Department for Infrastructure. I therefore consulted the Minister for Infrastructure, who advised me that road safety continues to be of paramount importance to her and that she is committed to working proactively to address a range of issues that negatively impact on road safety. The Minister advised that the three proposed amendments on vehicle seizure, preliminary testing for drink and drugs and drug checkpoints also reflect public engagement with her Department on the issue and that she is content with policy intent of the three amendments. Minister Kimmins and I therefore both support the opportunity for the Assembly to engage on and consider each of the amendments as we work collectively to address this life-or-death issue.

I want to speak to the amendments in the group in the sequence in which they feature on the Marshalled List. Amendment Nos 74 and 75, tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley, Kingston and Dunne, would amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to insert new clauses relating to drugs testing at authorised checkpoints and a duty to administer preliminary tests.

I understand that amendment No 74 would amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to provide powers to the PSNI, when on duty at an authorised checkpoint, to ensure that people cooperate with a checkpoint drugs test. The amendment defines a checkpoint drugs test as obtaining a specimen of saliva analysed by an approved device to determine the presence of drugs in the body. It would be an offence to fail to cooperate with a checkpoint drugs test without reasonable excuse.

I understand that amendment No 75 would amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to change the intention of article 17 of that Order from providing a power for the PSNI to administer preliminary tests to a duty to administer preliminary tests if, in certain circumstances, a constable reasonably suspects that the person has been driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle and has committed a traffic offence or if an accident occurs. There would still be a power, as opposed to a duty, if a constable reasonably suspects that the person is driving or attempting to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The amendments were tabled on 19 May, and neither my Department nor the Department for Infrastructure has had sufficient time to carry out the usual due diligence on the fitness for purpose of the amendments' wording or the operational implications. However, the PSNI has provided some helpful initial information. The PSNI supports effective preliminary testing where it is lawful, necessary and practical. There is no objection in principle to strengthening the use of preliminary testing or to improving the policy, training and operational capability that supports it. However, the PSNI would have concerns about any amendment that creates an absolute statutory duty that cannot always be met in practice. If legislation states that the police must carry out one or more of the preliminary tests, there would need to be clarity around what happens when that cannot be done for genuine operational reasons. There may be occasions when a test cannot be carried out owing to circumstances on the ground. For example, there may be no suitable device available, an issue with equipment, a medical priority, scene safety concerns or other competing demands at the scene. In those circumstances, there is a risk that officers, despite acting reasonably, could be left open to criticism, legal challenge or unintended consequences.

It is important to distinguish between the three types of preliminary test. Preliminary breath testing is well established and already supported by internal PSNI policy. Devices are widely available, and officers are trained in their use from their initial training. The process is also supported by drink-driving limits and evidential breath-testing machines that make next steps clearer following a positive preliminary breath test. It should also be noted that current PSNI policy provides that all drivers involved in a road traffic collision that is attended by the police should be breath-tested. That is reflected in the volume of preliminary breath tests that are already carried out, with 30,363 tests recorded between 1 January 2025 and 31 December 2025.

The position is different for preliminary drug testing. The main limitation is, as I mentioned, the absence of a specified drug limit in Northern Ireland such as those available in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. For example, if someone takes codeine, they may test positive for certain categories of drug, depending on the test that is undertaken, even though the codeine may not be impairing their ability to drive. As a result, drug testing cannot currently be used as effectively here as it can in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The PSNI is actively working on that area with its partners.

The longer-term aim is to reach a position in which roadside drug testing can be brought more closely into line with preliminary breath testing. Even with preliminary breath testing, there may be occasions on which suitable equipment is not immediately available. An improperly drafted statutory duty could result in a member of the public being detained longer than is necessary while equipment is sourced or being subjected to another preliminary test simply to satisfy the legal requirement.

A preliminary impairment test is also more intrusive than alcohol and drug testing. It requires the person to leave their vehicle and complete a number of tasks, often at the roadside, in public view and in whatever conditions present at the time. In minor cases, particularly where there is no suspicion of impairment, the PSNI is concerned that doing that may not be deemed necessary or proportionate. There is also a practical issue regarding the range of incidents to which it would apply. If the requirement were to apply to collisions, moving traffic offences and cases involving suspicion, it could cover a wide set of circumstances.

The scale of the issue is also significant. Between April 2025 and March 2026, there were 38,176 detections for motoring offences in Northern Ireland. Those figures do not include the wider number of motorists who were stopped and spoken to for minor matters, where officers may provide advice or guidance without taking formal action. It appears that a mandatory requirement linked to traffic offences could require officers to carry out preliminary tests even in lower-level encounters in which no formal detection is made. That could remove officer discretion and result in testing that is not necessary. That also needs to be viewed against the current PSNI resourcing position.

Officer numbers are already under pressure. Any new legal duty must be something that officers can realistically deliver in practice. The proposal could have consequences for a number of the PSNI's partner organisations, including my Department, Health and Social Care and Forensic Science Northern Ireland. If the amendment creates pressure to roll out roadside drug testing service-wide, that will bring with it additional costs, budgetary pressures and demands for training, equipment, access to forensic medical officers, blood sampling, laboratory analysis and reporting. Under the current legislation, the PSNI advised, a service-wide roll-out of roadside drug testing would not be feasible at this point and could place undue pressure on existing forensic and health service capacity.

PSNI understands the intention behind amendment No 75 and supports the principle of having that power available in future should excess limits similar to those for alcohol be legislated for. Under current legislation, however, Northern Ireland does not have such specified drug-driving limits, and enforcement remains focused on people who are driving while unfit through drugs. That means that impairment must be evidenced through the manner of driving. A positive roadside drug test may assist an investigation but, by itself, does not prove the offence or place the case in the same position as drink-driving. Should those powers be introduced, the fact that the motorist will have been stopped at a vehicle checkpoint increases the possibility that no impaired driving was witnessed. The PSNI warns that that could have the unintended consequence of officers having to let motorists proceed, even though they have failed a drug test, owing to the lack of legislation to support an arrest. For that reason, there may be limited practical benefit in introducing drug testing at authorised checkpoints at this stage. The PSNI's view is that, if specified drug limits were to be introduced, that type of power would become much more useful, and the PSNI would be supportive of it forming part of the wider drug-driving framework.

It is therefore clear that a lot of operational and further legislative detail is required to be worked through by a number of statutory partners. However, given the support of the Minister for Infrastructure and my deep concern about the need to improve safety on our roads, I am content to support amendment Nos 74 and 75 today and to work through the detail as we proceed. It may be that I will need to table amendments at Further Consideration Stage for the Assembly to consider. If the amendments pass in any form, it is highly likely that it will be necessary to delay their commencement until operational needs can be met. However, I will be clear with the Assembly on these matters at Further Consideration Stage. In the interim, I am happy to engage with the Members who have tabled the amendments so that we can, hopefully, reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to everyone involved. At this stage, I support the amendments, with some practical reservations that, I believe, we can work through. I would prefer to have the provisions on the statute book to allow them to come into operation as soon as is practically possible. The alternative is to wait for primary legislation well into the next mandate, which would delay matters to an unacceptable degree.

I now turn to amendment No 90. Mr Patsy McGlone, Mr Paul Frew and Miss Nuala McAllister have tabled an amendment on:

I am grateful to Mr McGlone for providing me with advance notice of his intentions, and I was therefore able to agree and engage with him prior to its tabling. Further, my Department is familiar with the issue, and my officials were able to engage with DFI counterparts and seek the views of the PSNI, which also supports the amendment.

The amendment would remove the current requirement under article 65 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 for a warning to be issued prior to the seizure of a vehicle except in limited circumstances. In practice, that would provide the police with greater flexibility to intervene immediately where vehicles are being used in a dangerous, reckless or antisocial manner that is causing significant disruption and distress in communities. We have all heard this evening of the frequency with which that occurs in many of our constituencies.

The intention behind the amendment is to strengthen the operational tools available to police in tackling that behaviour and to ensure that enforcement action can be taken more swiftly where appropriate. Parents may be content to buy a scooter for their child and allow them to go out and ride it. I suspect that they will not buy them a second one if the first one is confiscated by the police.

Members will agree that the illegal use of scooters and scramblers is a scourge on our communities. The Department has been dealing with a large number of questions and correspondence on the matter, and we have a thorough knowledge of the issues. The intention is simply to strengthen the ability of the police to act swiftly on the issues. It is not limited to e-scooters and scramblers; it relates to all motor vehicles. That will be helpful, as other motor vehicles and other new developments may lead to similar vehicle nuisance occurring in future.

The amendment broadly reflects similar provisions in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 passed at Westminster. When I met Mr McGlone to discuss his proposal and on the understanding that the PSNI also supports the amendment, I advised him of my support, subject to further engagement with him by the Department for Infrastructure and PSNI to seek their views. Minister Kimmins has also now indicated her support, and I am therefore happy to commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Frew: I will not keep the House too long on the matter. You will be thankful that I will not go through a full winding-up speech, other than to say, "Thank you very much" to every person who has contributed to the debate. There were others on these Benches who wished to participate, and I thank them for their perseverance and endurance and for lifting their name off the list at the last moment. Thank you very much for that. I acknowledge that, because you all had something powerful to contribute.

I will raise some of the issues that were raised with me. The Minister responded to an intervention from David Brooks on the level of drugs in someone's system. One of the reasons why that is so important to bring in is that it provides an evidential base when police are investigating and when it goes to court. Jaidyn Rice's family was deprived of that at the time. There is a real issue with regard to making sure that those tests are done so that the most thorough evidential base can go to a police file, to the PPS and, then, on to court.

That is why it is really important. We understand that there will be operational matters around that. We understand those sensitivities. Stephen, Brian, Maurice and I commit to working with the Department and the Minister on any amendments that may need to be tabled at Further Consideration Stage.

Connie Egan raised an issue about, I think, the new article 17CB(6), which says:

I think that that is what she referred to. That is the only place in the amendment where I could see the phrase "reasonable excuse". That is a read-across from the existing article 17CA on "Breath testing at authorised check-points". It has been read across in order to be thorough. I hope that I have been able to answer and address the questions that were posed to me.

I will not go through a full winding-up speech, because it would not be fair on the House. We have been here for a long time. We have had a very good debate. I thank every Member who contributed and who will vote for the three amendments. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the debate on the group 5 amendments.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, in 2009, the then Speaker made a ruling on appropriate conduct in the House. He said that the context of comments that were made in the House and the manner in which they were spoken would out rule, if you like, the issue of parliamentary language. Therefore, when people make comments, it will depend on the context.

Earlier, Jonathan Buckley came into the Chamber and made an intervention. It was a point of order that was not a point of order, in that it related to comments that were made outside the House. He did so in a tone that can only be described as inflammatory. In that statement, he also made a number of false statements. First, he created the impression that I was not here and demanded that I be brought to the Chamber to make a statement. I was sitting here at the time. Secondly, he went on to say that I needed to provide an explanation about the alleged immigration status of the person who has now been charged with offences relating to what happened in north Belfast last night. As you are aware, I am not and never have been the Home Secretary. I am the Justice Minister, and immigration is not devolved.

The context in which those statements were made is the highly volatile situation that is developing outside the House. The purpose of the intervention was clearly to get a TikTok clip out of it and put it on social media, where it has now been shared, in order to inflame already angry tensions outside and particularly to direct them towards me and, by extension, my colleagues.

I therefore ask the Speaker to look at the matter on a number of fronts. First, in the context that we are in today, were Mr Buckley's comments a departure from the normal parliamentary standards that we should expect in a debate in the House? Secondly, is his use of fake points of order to furnish himself with social media clips an abuse of the privileges given to us in the Chamber? Thirdly, is it in order for a Member to stand in this Chamber and deliberately mislead the public by taking clips of statements that they have made and putting them on their social media without being challenged? I am not one to raise fake points of order, but, on the basis of William Hay's ruling in 2009, I believe that the context in which that happened and the tone in which it was delivered require further consideration by the Speaker.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister. I note the Minister's point of order. I also note that the Deputy Speaker was clear earlier that Mr Buckley's remarks were not a point of order. I am happy to refer the matter to the Speaker's Office, which has been done.

The Business Committee has agreed that the sitting should end at the most appropriate point. Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill will continue on Monday 15 June. This seems to be a convenient point at which to adjourn. The debate will continue on Monday 15 June with a debate on the amendments in group 6. Ladies and gentlemen, please be safe on the way home. There are a lot of disruptions on the roads tonight. Be careful.