Official Report: Monday 15 June 2026

Mr Speaker: A number of points of order were made last week on a number of issues. I will write to the relevant Members directly about those, but I will make some general points.

I know that we were dealing with difficult circumstances last week, but the House exists so that issues can be dealt with through the democratic process, rather than on the streets. All Members need to respect the right of other Members to express different views, even if they find them challenging or, in some instances, distasteful. All Members also need to be aware of our standards of debate: good temper, courtesy, moderation and respect. There were occasions last week when the House did not achieve that balance and the debate was not as constructive as it could have been.

Secondly, the House knows my views: Members should come to the Chamber focused on conducting proper debate and scrutiny in here, rather than on what can be used for social media.

Thirdly, I had to intervene on a point of order made by Mr Gaston last week, and Deputy Speaker Blair had to intervene on a point of order made by Mr Buckley. I am concerned about the tendency of Members to abuse points of order. I remind the House that one of the signs that a Member has a genuine point of order to which they want a response is that they give the Chair advance notice, for which our office is always open. Otherwise, other Members may well have the suspicion that points of order are being made purely for political reasons and sometimes for use on social media, rather than having any procedural value. There is a lot of business over the next few weeks. Members who repeatedly abuse points of order to waste the House's time with matters that should be raised during debates may find that the Chair is less likely to call them.

I also take a dim view of Members posting exchanges with Chairs on social media. The Chair, whoever it happens to be, has a job to do, including intervening on Members at times. It is out of order to challenge the Chair in the Chamber, so Members should not take the back-door route of doing so through social media. Again, in those circumstances, Members may find that they are not called.

Over the past two weeks, the House has been considering the Justice Bill. That has been a good example of good-quality Assembly scrutiny with, for the most part, reasoned contributions and constructive exchanges with the Minister to probe issues. I encourage Members to ensure that that is the norm.

Let us move on.

Mr Speaker: Colm Gildernew has been given leave to make a statement on racially motivated riots that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Although the House will have considerable latitude with this Matter of the Day, I remind Members that a number of people are now in the court system, so be careful about matters that are sub judice.

Mr Gildernew: I raise the issue of the racially motivated riots that we have seen in the past week since we stood here last Tuesday. Communities have been convulsed in an orgy of racist violence. We saw mobs roaming the streets, attacking people simply on the basis of the colour of their skin and making people homeless in the midst of what is already a homelessness crisis. We saw vulnerable communities being attacked and terrorised and families being burnt from their homes. We saw children in their bare feet being escorted into the back of police vehicles for their own safety. Those were absolutely shameful and disgraceful scenes, and everybody in the Chamber should be calling them out for what they are.

I acknowledge the efforts that the community and voluntary sector has made over the past week to deal with the fallout from much of that violence through trying to support families, trying to find them somewhere to stay and trying to remove them from situations in which they were in imminent danger. I also acknowledge the leadership that people have shown in their own communities, where they have rallied around people who have been targeted. They have supported them and, where they could, tried to assist them. Furthermore, I acknowledge the Housing Executive and housing association staff who have been working around the clock to try to address some of the issues. Regrettably, during an emergency meeting of the Committee for Communities that I called last Wednesday, it became clear that the situation has been exacerbated as a result of what happened in Larne last year and that some of the normal measures used to respond have not been available. That is absolutely disgraceful. I also send my solidarity to the Mayor of Belfast, Róis-Máire Donnelly, who has received death threats. She has just come into post as the new mayor and has been the subject of such threats.

We need to speak with one voice, and what we say in the Chamber needs to be heard very clearly, Members. Those were absolutely unacceptable and disgraceful levels of violence. I have referenced communities, homelessness and housing. Gordon Lyons, as the Minister for Communities, whose remit includes homelessness and housing, has been largely invisible and largely silent on those issues. I would like the Minister to come to the House to make clear what steps he is taking to protect those communities, to condemn the fact that people are being made homeless and to give support to people who are desperately trying to provide housing for all those affected.

Mr Carroll: The violent scenes that we saw last week, where loyalist paramilitaries and the far right ran amok across our communities, instilling fear in our migrant, asylum seeker and black Irish and black British communities, have to be condemned and called out by everybody as a racist pogrom. Our communities are living in fear, and they have been for some time. At least 200 families have been burnt out of their homes or forced to flee because of that violence. We do not have an immigration problem in this society, but we do have a racism problem.

I extend my solidarity to everyone who has been under pressure and living in fear over the past week. Despite the racist, dangerous and violent actions of a minority, you are welcome here. Migrants and asylum seekers, you are welcome in this community. You belong here. You are very much part of the fabric of our society and make it better. As Suleiman, a Somalian, said on Saturday, he is not part of an alien culture. I commend him and everybody else who turned out at the largest anti-racist demonstration in the history of Belfast, with some 20,000 people in attendance.

Unfortunately, across our society, we do have a problem with violence in our communities. It is wrong to blame that on one particular community or on one particular group of people because of their race or where they may have been born. I note that the same forces that were causing havoc in the past week did not utter a peep when, over the past six years, disgracefully, 30 women were killed in this society.

I also extend my solidarity to the journalists who have been intimidated and threatened over recent days. It is important that the ugly scenes and the ugly face of this society are shown to people who live here and across the world. Journalists have been threatened by people who cannot defend their wanton violence and far-right ideas and who, instead, intimidate. Solidarity to the journalists and crews. The way to deal with racism is not through more violence and hate and especially not by shooting plastic or rubber bullets at working-class kids who are being exploited by loyalist paramilitaries.

There are also huge questions to be asked about how the PSNI handled last week. It refused to intervene to protect the people who were targeted and whose house in multiple occupation (HMO) addresses were being shared for some time. The state was nowhere to be found last week. The people who intervened were the community groups, the solidarity groups, the women's groups, the anti-racism organisations and political reps. That will be the key to protecting our society and communities and to pushing back the far right in the months and weeks ahead.

Mr O'Toole: Once again, I extend my and my party's sympathy and solidarity to Stephen Ogilvie, who suffered that appalling attack last week, and his loved ones. That appalling attack was responded to by a number of people in a truly appalling way. Some people have talked about "real people"; other people have talked about "legitimate concerns". That phrase has been used again and again. To be clear, people can have legitimate concerns about any number of policies, and they are entitled to talk about immigration. Even if I do not agree with their views, they are entitled to raise those questions. People are entitled to a political opinion with which I disagree, and they are entitled to ask questions about how the perpetrator of the initial attack, for example, was in this place. I want to talk about legitimate concerns. I want to talk about legitimate concerns over what happened on the streets of this city and in this region last week.

On Tuesday night, I was phoned by my colleague Councillor Dónal Lyons, who was with a number of families who had been put out of an apartment building on Sandy Row. They were standing in the rain. He asked me if I knew any keyholders nearby. I said that the only one I knew was me, so I opened my constituency office. There were about 30 people, including young families, amongst whom was a one-year-old baby who did not have nappies. I had to go home and get my child's nappies to give to that family. They sheltered in my constituency office. They were there for hours. We brought blankets, made them tea and toast and tried to reassure them until we could establish the location of the council's safe place and how it was going to be stood up. There was no bus transportation, so we drove them slowly, in convoy, across Belfast. A nine-year-old boy was in the back of my car. I was trying to talk to him, with his parents. I was trying to imagine how it would feel for my nearly nine-year-old boy to be got up out of his bed at night by people who were trying to burn his house down. I drove past his primary school, and he asked his mum whether he could go to school the next day. He said that he loved school and had been awarded "Pupil of the Week".

We talk in the abstract about people who live in our society. We talk about people who save lives, who work in care homes and who educate our children as if they are abstract. We talk about legitimate concerns and say that communities have legitimate concerns. I have legitimate concerns when I have to drive children in the back of my car to a safe place because someone has tried to burn their house down. That is my legitimate concern. I have legitimate concerns when our entire society is shut down because of AI-generated graphics, when small businesses have to shut, when workers have to lose wages and when schools have to close. Those are my legitimate concerns.

I also have a legitimate concern about the fact that we come here to debate the issue but do not have Ministers here to make a statement about it. The First Minister and deputy First Minister should be here. We should be hearing how those people will be housed, because they are still homeless. Despite the myths, they are people on skilled-worker visas, so they cannot, in many cases, go to the Housing Executive. I want to know how we will deradicalise these communities and protect them over the summer. There is a range of things that I want to hear, but I only have three minutes.

Mr Speaker: Time, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: We should be talking about all of that today. The First Minister and deputy First Minister should be here.

Mr Speaker: Mr Brett.

Mr O'Toole: This is an emergency.

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, your time is up, please.

Mr O'Toole: What happened in Belfast and our region last week was a disgrace.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Brett.

Mr Brett: On behalf of myself, my colleagues in North Belfast and my party, I condemn, without reservation, the violence and disorder that occurred in places across Northern Ireland. I am clear, as is my party, that violence has never had and never will have any role to play in society in Northern Ireland.

I say that not from the comfort of an armchair or to speak down to communities from on high, as some people have done, but as someone who spent three nights on the ground in north Belfast — on the Shore Road, in Cloughfern, in Glengormley — working alongside dedicated community volunteers to restore order and support those who were impacted.

I know the difference between peaceful protest and criminality, and what we saw last week was, on many occasions, criminality. However, equally and without hesitation, I will not allow the thousands of people in North Belfast who engaged in peaceful democratic protest, following the grotesque attempted beheading of one of my constituents, and expressed their concern about the immigration system to be smeared as the far right or racist. Peaceful protest is the cornerstone of any free and democratic society. That is what the overwhelming majority of people participated in, and they do not deserve to be condemned or caricatured.

I want to call out the breathtaking and utter hypocrisy on show from some in the House. The party opposite is led by a person who continues to state that there was no alternative to violence in Northern Ireland. You cannot tell a community that there was no alternative to violence and then condemn people for engaging in violence. I will not take lectures from political parties that, only a number of years ago, were willing to donate their money to bail out protesters and criminals in the United States of America but now condemn people in Northern Ireland. I will not take lectures from People Before Profit. When the barbaric attack took place on 7 October, its first reaction was not to mention the men, women and children who were killed but to tweet, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". I will not take lectures from the SDLP, whose Member of Parliament for Foyle can tweet about Elon Musk and Israel but cannot send out a single tweet about the Protestant community in the Fountain estate, who are being besieged, with five people having been arrested for that. We see your hypocrisy.

I call out violence and intimidation, but my community, who engaged in peaceful and lawful protest, will not be lectured by anyone in the House. Two things can be right at once: our immigration system is wrong, broken and needs to be fixed, but violence is also wrong.

Mr Tennyson: Last week, a frenzied knife attack left a man fighting for his life and our entire community reeling. I know that I speak for every Member when I say that my thoughts are with Stephen Ogilvie and his family. Despite that family's call for calm, however, their anguish has been exploited and weaponised by far-right and white supremacist elements locally and online. What followed was an outrage: a series of race-based pogroms; masked men marauding the streets kicking in doors, burning down homes and forcing children from their beds and into police Land Rovers; cancelled hospital appointments, closed schools and shuttered businesses; and families too afraid to walk the streets or lie in their own beds at night. I say this clearly to the members of our black and ethnic minority community who have had to listen to chants of, "Go home" from racist thugs this week: you are home; you are right where you belong; your contribution is valued; and you are one of us.

Some have suggested that the violence was the result of people seeking to legitimately express genuine concerns about immigration. However, AI posts urging men to wear masks, dress in dark clothing and prepare to be arrested tell a very different story. They were never protests; they were hate marches. This was racism pure and simple, no ifs and no buts, and we must not fall into a trap of seeking to rationalise or legitimise it after the fact. People in our community are, of course, entitled to their views on immigration, and the system is not perfect. However, what we saw last week was not a debate, a conversation or an exchange of ideas on the way forward.

We never seem to get honesty about the complexities or challenges associated with these issues or well-thought-out proposals on solutions. Instead, we get inflammatory rhetoric and provocateurs in the Chamber whipping up hate and division. It is especially dangerous when we hear Members talk about "alien cultures" or "invasions". Those statements imply that there are people in our community who are somehow less legitimate, less rooted and less deserving of safety than anyone else. Language such as that does not calm tensions; it inflames them. Leadership means lowering the temperature, not fanning the flames.

In Northern Ireland, we know all too well what happens when entire communities are scapegoated for the actions of individuals as part as tit-for-tat violence, but we also know that this place has never been defined by our darkest days. We are defined by the neighbours who opened their doors this week; by the volunteers who showed up; by the communities that stood together and by the thousands who took to the streets of Belfast on Saturday to stand against racism. That is who we are — a tolerant, inclusive, diverse and resilient society — and we will not allow a vocal minority to drown out the very best of us.

Mr Burrows: As I have said before, the brutal attack on Stephen Ogilvie shocked not just the people of Northern Ireland but the entire world. It was savage and brutal, and I am glad that someone was swiftly arrested and charged. We must let due process take its course. I spoke this morning to Maitiu Mag Tighearnan, the have-a-go hero with the hurley stick who intervened and, no doubt, saved Stephen Ogilvie's life. What a man he is. His humility on the phone with me was simply inspiring and humbling.

I will address immigration in a moment, but it is important to say first that all violence is wrong today, tomorrow and yesterday. The racist violence that we saw was horrendous. I call "traitors" people who would chase nurses from our hospitals, where they are trying to treat our citizens, because of the colour of their skin. Burning down a Glider bus is just an act of wanton criminality. Forcing people out of their home or burning a home because of the colour of the skin of someone who is in it is an act of unadulterated racism. I support the Police Service in rounding up and bringing to justice everyone who was involved in that.

You have to be consistent in your support for the police and the justice system. Mr Carroll criticises the police for not intervening, but he also criticises them for firing baton rounds. He would not see them have tasers; he would not see them have CS spray. There are many Members who want to disarm the police of every option they have to deal with criminals and then criticise them when they do not intervene in a riot. There are also Members who will vote today to change the age of criminal responsibility. That would stop the police even investigating people up to the age of 14 who might have been involved in serious crime, such as burning down a Glider or burning an immigrant out of their home. That change will mean that, if you are 13 years and 300-odd days old, it is not a crime to burn a migrant out of their home. It is simply not a crime. That sends the wrong signal at the wrong time.

As a body of political leaders, we should be able to talk about immigration in a non-inflammatory way — to separate legal, illegal and asylum — and to say that it is right to deport foreign criminals in the same way as it is right for the authorities in Europe, America or Canada to deport a UK citizen who commits a crime over there. That is not racist. We need to be able to articulate these things. We also need to be able to articulate facts about the speed of our asylum system and the deficiencies in our common travel area and the fact that many migrants contacted me this weekend to say, "Jon, thank you for speaking up for us, because we did this the right way — we went about immigration the right way — and, therefore, people shouldn't take shortcuts and do it illegally".

My party, unlike many others, always stands for the rule of law and order. I condemn the violence, and I wish Stephen Ogilvie well.

Mr Gaston: Unlike some in the Chamber, my party and I have always been clear about violence: it is wrong; it is counterproductive; and it needs to stop. You will look in vain for any TUV representative who has said that there was no alternative to bombing, shooting, kidnap and murder. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the self-styled First Minister for all. A political class that accepts that — every party that partners Sinn Féin in government has accepted it — cannot lecture others on violence without many people rolling their eyes at its hypocrisy. For many, sadly, when it comes to violence, the existence of this place sends a message of, "It worked for them, so perhaps it will work for us". That mindset is the product of this Stormont.

Another message from the open-border brigade in this place is, "We do not care about the issues that led to the brutal stabbing and attempted beheading a week ago today". Seven days on, where is the statement from the Justice Minister telling us what her Department and her agencies are doing to stop illegal immigrants taking the route that the would-be killer took into Northern Ireland? How many buses from Dublin have PSNI officers stopped to check for illegal immigrants? How many people have been sent back to the Irish Republic because they sought to come here illegally? More tellingly, how many illegal immigrants have come by that route? How many illegal immigrants are living in Northern Ireland today? Does the Justice Minister know? Does she care — that is the question — or is Alliance still on the same page as it has previously articulated in this place, which is that there is no such thing as illegal immigrants? Those are the issues that the House does not want to talk about, and those are the questions that Mrs Long certainly has not answered. It is time that she did.

Throughout our United Kingdom, there is much talk about "Stop the boats". In Northern Ireland, we also need to talk about stopping and checking the buses. We had policing devolved to Stormont. What benefit has it brought? Our Justice Minister needs to come forward and tell us what she is doing about the issue.

Ms Sugden: The events that we witnessed across Northern Ireland over the past week were shameful. A man was seriously injured in a horrific attack. The person accused of carrying out that attack has now been arrested and charged. Our focus should remain on the victim, his family and the criminal proceedings that will now follow. Instead, however, we have seen homes attacked, businesses damaged, families intimidated, police officers assaulted and entire communities left fearful. None of those people was responsible for what happened last Monday evening.

Throughout all of that, the victim's family have shown dignity. Despite the unimaginable circumstances in which they find themselves, they have called for calm and for peaceful protest. They have acknowledged the deeply valuable contribution that migrants make to our society, and they have made it clear that the attack should not be used to divide people or fuel hostility. We should be led by their example. Despite their pain, their anger and their concern for their loved one, they have shown more leadership than most. They understand that attacking innocent people will not help the victim; they understand that targeting entire communities will not deliver justice; and they understand that exploiting a tragedy for other purposes helps nobody.

I have heard from constituents who have concerns about immigration, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. People are entitled to hold views on migration policy. They are entitled to question how immigration is managed and to debate pressures on housing, public services and integration. Those conversations are entirely legitimate. However, what is not legitimate is using concerns as an excuse for violence, intimidation or hatred. Many of the people who have been targeted in recent days are our neighbours, our colleagues and our friends. They work in our hospitals, our care homes, our schools, our hospitality sector and businesses across Northern Ireland. The reality is that many of our public services and businesses would struggle enormously without them. Their value, however, is not simply in the work that they do. Their value is in the fact that they are people — individuals — who have chosen to build their lives here, raise their families and contribute to our communities.

What troubles me most is that much of what we are seeing appears to be driven by fear, misinformation and deliberate provocation. Northern Ireland has experienced significant demographic change in recent years. That is the reality. Immigration policy is a matter for the UK Government, and people are entitled to expect leadership on these issues. However, whatever concerns people may have, there is no justification for what we have witnessed on our streets. For too long, politics has been shaped by fear caused by one group or another. Twenty or thirty years ago, that was through a sectarian lens. Today, in some quarters, it is through a racial lens, and we should all know better.

Mrs Mason: What we have witnessed over the past week has been abhorrent, as, unfortunately, has been some of what we have heard in the Chamber this afternoon. Families have been terrorised, and people have been forced from and burned out of their homes in the most brutal way. Those scenes take many of us back to the past. Men, women and young, innocent children, for goodness' sake, have gone to bed frightened in the communities that they call home — in their safe place.

At times such as this, leadership matters. Unfortunately, we have not seen leadership from all. The absence of leadership from our Communities Minister has been glaringly obvious. While families were being driven from their homes, Housing Executive staff worked day and night to find emergency accommodation — somewhere for those families to lay their heads for that night — yet there was deafening silence from the Minister who is responsible for that accommodation. While community workers and volunteers were on the front line trying to calm tensions, to support vulnerable families and to keep our young people away from the thuggish behaviour, many were seeking to hear a strong, unequivocal response from the Communities Minister, but they got no such response. People looked to those in positions of leadership for reassurance and direction, but many felt that that response was absent from some.

That silence has been felt deeply. Many of those affected will feel that they have been failed and will ask where that leadership from some was when they needed it the most. The people carrying the burden of the crisis stepped up, Housing Executive staff stepped up, community organisations stepped up and local residents stepped up. Many will ask this very simple question: where was the Communities Minister when families were being forced from their homes? His silence is deafening. We must all stand together against racism. Hatred will not win.

Mr Brooks: I join my colleague Mr Brett in saying, without hesitation, that violence is wrong. Our party has always said that. Attacking the police, who have nothing to do with the grievances expressed, is wrong. Burning buses and cars is wrong. Forcing families from their homes is wrong: it is wrong whenever those people are foreign nationals, and it is wrong whenever they are from the local community; sadly, in east Belfast, we had both. People were losing their homes: for what cause? Violence on our streets is wrong, and, unlike some in the Chamber, I have always said so.

I believe that problematic foreign cultures are present in Northern Ireland. Whenever we have that discussion, it is often juxtaposed with Christianity and the idea of this being a Christian nation with some aspiring for it to be more so. I will not take lectures in scripture and Christianity from those who often spend their time opposing Christian values — I have no truck with such lectures. Equally, I say to those who have been involved in the violence that you will not rebuild a Christian nation by torching houses or cars or by attacking the police. The only way to build a Christian nation is by following Christ. You can call whatever it is that you seek to build what you will, but do not call it "Christian". A more Christian example was present in the Ballybeen estate, where the community rallied round a well-liked Romanian family who were forced from their home and raised money. That family has had to return home to Romania, but the community has reached out to make it clear that it wants them back and has received thanks from the family for that. I hope to see that family back in Ballybeen soon.

In condemning all the violence, let me say that there are Members from across the Chamber who want to use this event to quieten or shut down debate on immigration and to silence those of us who wish to speak up for our communities. That will not happen. In the Chamber last week, those Members told us, for the first time, that they are up for conversations on immigration. They said that they recognised the issues and the fact that there are voices to be heard; yet it took a night of trouble on the streets for them to go back to calling pretty much everyone who has concerns about immigration racist and far right. I have said before that the way to fuel racist and far right sentiment is to continue down the path of ignoring working-class communities, which carry more than their fair share of the load in that regard, making them feel unheard and gaslighting them into believing that what they see with their own eyes is not true.

I thank the emergency services that were present in east Belfast last week, particularly in Lendrick Street and McMaster Street. I give voice to some of the residents there, who are sick of the attention that they have been getting from journalists and YouTubers, and —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Brooks: — I ask for peace on their behalf.

Ms Bradshaw: Last week, we saw scenes on the streets of Belfast and beyond that do not represent who we are or who we should aspire to be. The racist riots that tore through our streets were not just an attack on bricks and mortar but a direct assault on the safety, dignity and belonging of our ethnic minority neighbours. I send my very best wishes to all those people who were displaced over the past week and to the people who were attacked on Donegall Avenue in the early hours of Sunday morning. It is absolutely deplorable that anyone's right to a family life and to privacy would be so grotesquely breached.

We in the Alliance Party are clear that Belfast must be a shared city for everyone, but, right now, for many people, including our healthcare workers, students, business owners and children, that is simply not happening.

Over the past week, we have seen the worst and the best of people here. I place on record my thanks to the Ormeau community and Cooke Centenary Presbyterian Church for their amazing donation drive over the weekend and thank everybody who donated. I also thank organisations such as Anaka Women's Collective for the subsequent dispersal of essential food and toiletries to people living in our city who are cowering in fear. I was at the donation centre yesterday morning, and I heard about the immense pressures, such as the need for formula milk. I saw volunteers go out and buy it out of their own pocket so that terrified new mothers who are staying in their homes can get that essential nutrition for their precious babies. How horrendous.

I also condemn the reckless and malicious targeting of vulnerable people through the online posting of addresses of houses in multiple occupation. It was nothing short of a digital hit list, painting a target on the back of not just migrant workers and people from ethnic minority communities but students and short-term renters. It was not just those from ethnic minority communities who feared that they would be attacked in their home.

The weaponisation of data highlights a critical vulnerability, and I thank Belfast City Council for taking down the list. I have written to the Minister for Communities to ask him urgently to review and amend section 62 of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. As it stands, there is a statutory requirement to publish a full, unrestricted public register of HMO addresses, including the names of managers, but that was exploited last week by racist agitators and used as a tool of intimidation. We therefore need to address the imbalance between data transparency and the right to a private life.

I will address one issue that Gerry Carroll raised. Not to be contrary, but when I spoke to the PSNI on Wednesday afternoon, it had deployed 18 police officers just to the Holylands and lower Lisburn Road —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Bradshaw: — area, where those addresses are. I then spoke to the PSNI on Friday —.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Bradshaw: Sorry.

Ms Sheerin: What we saw last week on the streets of Belfast was disgusting. It was racism in all its ugly reality, and it has to be condemned outright by everyone in the Chamber. Unfortunately, as others have touched on, the leadership needed to deal with what happened and to deal with the poor, affected communities came not from the Communities Minister but from people on the ground. It came from activists, from members of the clergy, from the community and voluntary sector and from residents, who showed what the real spirit of Irishness is by welcoming people into their homes and community centres with open arms.

We have heard doublespeak from the DUP and others across the Chamber in recent days and weeks. Careful consideration has to be given to that as we move forward. If we are to deal properly with the scourge of racism that we saw in all its true reality last week, we have to think carefully about the words that we use. It is not acceptable for Members to conflate issues.

We stood in the Chamber at the same time last Monday to talk about a family of colour that was targeted in Belfast and had their business destroyed, and, rightly, we all condemned that. In the following hours, we did not see an attack on every white person in that community, nor should there have been, because that does not reflect the people of the Shankill Road. We have seen the real spirit of the people of the Shankill Road reflected in their condemnation of the attack and in the welcome for the would-be business owner in their community. Similarly, it is not acceptable that our migrant community and people of colour in Belfast feel threatened in their own homes in the wake of one horrific incident.

We need to think carefully about the language that we use, because we must show the world that we are a welcoming community. Irish people emigrated all around the world, made homes for themselves and helped build countries, and it is our responsibility to show the people who want to come here to make a better life for themselves that they have the right to do so. We need to tread carefully as we go into the summer months and not allow the disgusting racism and sectarianism, which is reminiscent of a time when other people in this country were burnt out of their homes, leading some to feel that the attacks of the past week are the same.

Mr Speaker: Members will notice that the time for the Matter of the Day has passed. Given the significance of the issue being discussed, it is important to allow those who have asked to speak to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr Kingston: It has been a long week for everyone in Northern Ireland, and more so for those who have suffered negative life-changing events. We think of Stephen Ogilvie and the barbaric attack on him last Monday night. We continue to pray for Stephen's recovery and for his family. We think of the people whose homes, cars and businesses were attacked and targeted because of their race and others who have suffered violence that was totally wrong. We think of the people who are now living in fear, afraid to go out, afraid to go to work and afraid of what will happen overnight when they go to sleep. I visited many parts of North Belfast where terrible violence occurred last week. I have spoken to residents and others who have felt the impact of it, and I have helped them in any way that I can.

The attack on Stephen Ogilvie has shone a spotlight on the issue of uncontrolled, illegal immigration and the abuse of the asylum system and, in particular, on the lack of security at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland — between the UK and the EU. The Sudanese man who was charged with the attempted murder of Stephen had travelled through Egypt, France and the Republic of Ireland, which are three safe countries, before he claimed asylum in Belfast, which is in the United Kingdom. That is an abuse of the system. He arrived here claiming that he needed a place of safety and our hospitality, but he went on to be charged with attempted murder. If he is convicted, the DUP will demand that he be deported and lose his leave to remain.

Every country must have control of its borders. There are and must be strict conditions on work and study visas in the UK. We greatly value those who come here legally with permission to work in our health service, our public services, our factories and our businesses. It is disgraceful that some of those people and places have been targeted in violent attacks over the past week. We say again that it is utterly wrong and shameful. The DUP has, however, constantly highlighted the problems with uncontrolled illegal immigration. People are outraged at the numbers crossing the English Channel in small boats, without permission and then claiming the right to stay. Our equivalent is the number of people travelling across the open border from the Republic of Ireland without permission and claiming the right to stay.

The UK and Ireland are not part of the Schengen area. The authorities, North and South, must do more to secure our borders, and officials at Dublin Airport must stop exporting illegal immigrants on the bus to Belfast and telling them to claim asylum when they arrive here. There must be greater cooperation between the UK's Border Force and the gardaí in those matters.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Kingston: I also appeal for the rejection of violence.

Ms Nicholl: Mr Speaker, I am grateful that you have allowed extra time to have this conversation. Thank you very much.

Some 90% of those seeking international protection in the South came from Northern Ireland, so can we please address that misconception? To blame the Justice Minister for the situation, when she has no role in managing migration, is, frankly, disgusting politicking.

I have spent the last few days with people in my constituency who have been burnt out of their houses, with someone who had their shop burnt down for the second time and with communities who are sheltering in a church. I saw a boy doing a GSCE exam online in a church because he was too afraid to go to school. So many children from minority ethnic backgrounds have not been going into school. A cancer doctor texted me and said, "How do I go into work tomorrow? How do I send my kids into school?". The fear is palpable.

I have said that I am happy to have a conversation about migration, but, when we bring it into those contexts, we conflate the issues and make it seem like there is anything that justifies the violence and hate that is happening in our society. The riots will stop, but the impact on those children will last. We saw what happened in Ballymena. I know kids who just did not go to their swimming lessons for months afterwards. They are feeling it. We can, of course, have a conversation about migration, but it needs to be done sensitively and without adding fuel to a really fraught situation. We also need to remember that we do not have a say over migration; that is for the Home Office.

If we are to talk about anything that needs to be done, let us talk about how we coordinate a response, because this is the third year that it has happened. What happens when people are burnt out of their house? Who leads on that? Which person in the Department for Communities will coordinate the response? Why do 200 people have to be found houses by volunteers from a church? Why did Matthew O'Toole have to drive people to his constituency office? Why are people asking volunteers to do that work? Who is coordinating the response? We need to make sure that we have a clear, actionable plan in place for when such things happen.

I said last week that it was not the time to have a conversation about migration because I was absolutely terrified that there would be riots or some kind of response. We have to be so careful with our language. We need to make sure that we have plans in place. We need to have sensible policy discussions, and we need to stop blaming people for the really awful things that are happening in our society. To blame it on the Justice Minister is absolutely disgusting. We need to be beyond that. A lot of work needs to be done, and I hope that we can have the courage, empathy and capacity to move beyond it, because there are people in our society who are terrified right now and need our leadership.

Ms McLaughlin: First, our thoughts and prayers are with Stephen Ogilvie and his family.

The scenes that we have witnessed on our streets in recent days have been utterly shameful, and I think we can all agree on that. Families have been forced from their homes; businesses have been attacked; communities are living in fear; and people have been targeted simply because of who they are, where they come from and the colour of their skin. There can be no excuses or equivocation: racism has no place in our society.

Many of us have spoken about the need for political leadership, particularly when there are those who stand in the House and spout deliberate lies about immigration policy. I am sorry that Timothy Gaston has left the House. That is disgusting and irresponsible, and not all unionists feel like that. He had only to listen to the words, a few minutes later, of Claire Sugden, who stood up in the House and gave leadership for the unionist community and all our communities. However, political leadership alone will not solve the problem. We also need leadership from our communities, and we have seen the best of it over recent days. I am proud to call them part of all of our communities.

The uncomfortable truth is that, in too many places, individuals and paramilitary organisations continue to exert control over our communities. They thrive on division, suspicion and fear. The vast majority of people want nothing to do with violence or hatred. The vast majority want safe streets, good jobs and opportunities for their children, yet we continue to see young people drawn into disorder and criminality. Those young people have no experience of the conflict. They should be looking to their future but, instead, are being taught to fear and resent their neighbours. That should be a concern for every one of us.

If a generation born after the Good Friday Agreement is still being taught division, serious questions must be asked. We must ask whether enough progress has been made in tackling paramilitarism and whether programmes such as Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) and Communities in Transition are delivering transformation as promised. They are not. It is plain to see in those communities that there is no delivery of transformation at all. The public are entitled to know what impact those programmes are having and whether they are achieving lasting change, because what we have witnessed this week suggests that many communities remain divided and too many people remain vulnerable to —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: — the influence of those who profit from fear and mistrust.

Mr Buckley: My first thoughts are with every innocent human life that has been affected by the past week's events in Northern Ireland, with Stephen Ogilvie and his family following a brutal and savage attack and with every other member of our community who has subsequently been caught up. My party and I have always been clear that violence is never the answer and that there has always been an alternative. However, I have listened as some parties in the House have attempted to put the blame for the violence in the streets in the past week at our door and at the door of political leaders who have been prepared to stand up, not just now but in times past, against an uncontrolled and illegal immigration system that continues to fail our citizens. I have never sensed a more out-of-touch political establishment that accuses people who highlight legitimate concerns. Mr O'Toole may have made light of it, but I can tell you now it is genuine and heartfelt.

Let us be very clear: no political leader caused the violence on the streets over the past week. The attempted beheading of a Belfast citizen by a Sudanese national who travelled across the world to enter our borders is what caused the violence in the streets. It was wrong: there should always be political alternatives. I have listened to Sinn Féin desperately try to rewrite the script on illegal and uncontrolled immigration. It is fooling absolutely nobody. The general public know that the horse has bolted and left the gate wide open. I have been contacted by constituents and people from further afield across Northern Ireland from south Armagh to Tyrone to Belfast who have caught on to the sheer folly of Sinn Féin's position of, "Brits out and everybody else in". It is absolutely on you. You come to the Chamber and say that we have no need to control immigration. You stand beside banners that say, "End deportations" and, "Open borders". It is ridiculous.

Just last week, I challenged the Secretary of State: 1,000 deportations from Northern Ireland in the past year. The Secretary of State told us that we did not have a problem. Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance told us that we did not have a problem. I asked him how many of those people came over the Irish border. He could not answer the question.

There is nowhere to hide. There are questions to answer. Let us be clear that parties cannot come to the House and gaslight any Member who has been highlighting those concerns for years. You must step up. You must do better.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McGuigan: I rise as my party's health spokesperson to condemn in the strongest possible terms the racist attacks, threats and intimidation that have been directed at Health and Social Care workers in the past week. The scenes that we have witnessed have been shameful. Healthcare workers who have dedicated themselves to caring for others have been subjected to fear, abuse and intimidation simply because of where they come from or the colour of their skin. Such behaviour is utterly unacceptable and has no place in our society.

Our Health and Social Care system faces unprecedented challenges. We continue to experience significant workforce pressures across all our hospitals, community services and primary care. Vacancy levels remain high in many professions; recruitment remains difficult; and retaining experienced staff is an ongoing challenge. Against that backdrop, international healthcare workers have become a vital part of our health service. Doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, care workers, support staff and many others come from across the world and make an enormous contribution every day. They care for our loved ones, support our communities and help to sustain services that would otherwise struggle to function. The reality is that our health service depends on their skills, dedication and commitment. Without international recruitment, many services would face even greater staffing shortages, and patients would experience longer waiting list waits and reduced access to care; in fact, our health service would collapse without them.

No healthcare worker wearing a uniform should have to fear travelling to work or providing care in their community. I hope that no healthcare worker feels that they have to leave their job in the North and move away because of racism. To every international healthcare worker who has chosen to make their home in the North, I send a clear message: you are valued; you are respected; and you are welcome. Your contribution to our Health and Social Care service is recognised and deeply appreciated by us all. I stand in solidarity with all who have been affected by the attacks, and I stand with the health service, with healthcare workers from every background and for the principles of equality, inclusion and respect that must define our society. Racism must be challenged wherever it appears, and we must ensure that all our healthcare staff can live and work free of fear, intimidation and hatred.

Mr Wilson: Over the weekend, Simon Harris TD boldly announced that Fine Gael would develop a blueprint for a so-called united Ireland by November. That is another grand announcement that we can file alongside the dozens, if not hundreds, of other such announcements over the years. For some nationalists in Northern Ireland and, increasingly, in the Irish Government, if they are looking for a convenient distraction, they can always rely on the old faithful: banging the united Ireland drum. Meanwhile, back in the real world, support for the abolition of Northern Ireland has fallen to a 10-year low.

Despite the predictions that Brexit would usher Northern Ireland out of the Union, we are now just short of 10 years on from the referendum. The most recent University of Liverpool study shows that support is not just not falling but has increased over the past few years, so, when Simon Harris tells us:

in preparation for what he calls "unity", that is telling in itself. He is speaking, of course, to a Republic of Ireland audience. He is pitching to voters in the Republic of Ireland because, for Simon Harris, Fine Gael and so many others, it would be much preferable if a so-called united Ireland did not include Northern Ireland. Nowhere is that more evident than in that comment:

in preparation for unity — "all political parties". That, apparently, is the framework that the Fine Gael Northern Ireland engagement group facilitated by Professor Deirdre Heenan will be working on. There is certainly no doubt that the group's work would be much easier if it conveniently ignored all of us who will continue to promote the benefits of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom.

Talking about a border poll is certainly much more attractive than getting on with delivering in government. I reckon that, perhaps, that is the lesson that Fine Gael has learned from Sinn Féin. We have been told that unity is just around the corner for longer than I have been alive. Indeed, if you did your 11-plus in the year in which the Provisional IRA had declared would be its year of victory, you are now just a couple of years off collecting your UK state pension. I will mention that many of my constituents never got to lift their state pension because of the terrorism of the IRA.

The latest grand plans to abolish Northern Ireland will come and go, and the world will move on. Then, as is clearly the case now, the arguments in favour of maintaining Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom will be overwhelming.

Ms Egan: As work across our government on tackling domestic and sexual violence continues, it is vital that we centre our approach on the needs of victims and on delivering justice for those who face such abuse. Victims need to be heard and treated with respect. Today, I focus my statement on a group that can often feel that it is left behind in the progress that is being made: our older population.

Today is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, which is coordinated by the charity Hourglass to raise the visibility of older people in the delivery of work and conversations around domestic abuse.

That organisation calls for a proactive approach to safer ageing across the UK, lobbying to ensure that older people are not a blind spot in work to build a safe society that does not tolerate abuse in any way, shape or form.

That will only become more and more relevant as our population develops, as evidenced by the fact that it is expected that, as soon as mid-2027, there will be more people aged 65 and over than children aged nought to 15 in Northern Ireland. That is already the case in the area of Ards and North Down, where I am from.

We have to take seriously the experiences and treatment of older people. In 2024, Hourglass research revealed that one in five older people in the UK is a victim of abuse. If you project that on to Northern Ireland's population, it means that over 100,000 older people here have experienced abuse. Every victim's experience is different, and forms of violence and abuse can include financial exploitation and coercive control, medical gaslighting, withholding healthcare and, of course, physical and sexual violence. To be clear, it is not just about abuse between partners and those who have been in a relationship for some time. Hourglass data shows that adult children account for around 44% of alleged perpetrators who are known to victims.

Today, we must stand together to ensure that older people are not overlooked when it comes to abuse. To quote Hourglass:

We cannot minimise the experience of those victims. We must work together across the Assembly to drive real progress on that issue.

Dr Aiken: Last week, we saw the horrific and barbaric attack on Stephen Ogilvie. That attack, no matter the rights and wrongs, was made by a legal asylum seeker in our nation. We also witnessed attacks on our communities that were perpetrated and incited from who really knows where. Those attacks were reinforced and amplified by social media, and they focused on many of the most vulnerable in our society. To what end?

On Thursday, the Health Minister and I visited traumatised citizens in my home town of Ballyclare. Not only were those who were attacked healthcare workers, many of whom keep our care homes open and provide healthcare provision to many of our old and infirm, but they are here legally. Moreover, they could not have got those jobs unless they had passed the Home Office and health service checks, which are a lot more onerous than lots of armchair social media warriors would believe them to be.

A further element of disquiet is caused by the fact that many victims of the attacks whom we visited were British citizens. Anyone who has undertaken the onerous and expensive task of achieving British nationality will attest to how difficult it is. They have spent thousands of pounds and completed difficult exams, many of which some of us would be hard-pressed to pass, in order to be British not as a matter of convenience but because they believe in and want to be part of our nation. They want to contribute. They are contributing, and they have exactly the same rights as every other British citizen because that is exactly what they are. Attacking people because of the colour of their skin or their perceived religion, even though many of them are pillars of the local Christian Churches and evidently British, is beyond ignorant. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, not the nation of the 1950s but of now. I think of Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol and Exeter — you name it — as that is how our modern and proud nation looks. For our own future, we must never forget that.

The fact that the young and others from all backgrounds are so easily swayed by false narratives that are pumped out of social media is worrying. Whether it is the endemic antisemitism, anti-Islam views or racial stereotyping, we seem to have lost our critical faculty to challenge the breadth of near incessant fake news. My conversation last week with someone who was being radicalised to go out and riot in order to prevent what they said was the "creeping Islamification of our society" could not get round the paradox that they were being manipulated in large part by a bot in Tehran, Serbia or St Petersburg. That is the sad reality of those AI-induced attacks on democracy. They play on the vulnerability, gullibility and, above all, prejudice of far too many. It is well past time that the question of who benefits from that disorder be asked. Why are those who do that so keen to undermine Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom's image? That is the critical question that we should be asking.

Mr McCrossan: I join colleagues across the House today in calling out the hate-filled, racist and violent scenes that reared their ugly head across Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland last week. It was absolutely appalling and almost unbelievable that such scenes were happening in our communities. What happened needs to be called out. There is no dressing it up. There is no hiding it, nor can we try to explain it away. It was absolute and utter racism. Those who took to the streets, covered their faces, attacked people's homes, burned people out of their homes, attacked healthcare workers and wore masks to stop cars in our towns, villages and cities to check whether there was anyone from an ethnic minority in the vehicle are cowards and thugs. They are racists, racists, racists. That is what they are. We in the House need to be completely united in calling out what happened for what it is.

There are legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, where it occurs. This is the forum, to which we are elected, in which to have those conversations, not in the streets, and not by burning public transport or by attacking people because of the colour of their skin. Such scenes have haunted our communities and set them back, and they have traumatised people. They also send a signal to the rest of the world that people cannot visit this place. The cheek of it. The world opened its doors to Irish and British people in very difficult times. They put their arms around us, welcomed us in and gave us opportunities and a life.

There is not mass illegal immigration in Northern Ireland. Anyone who dresses it up as being an issue needs to have a good, hard look at themselves or at least go and look at the facts. What we have Northern Ireland is a health service that has been built and is protected and sustained by people from ethnic minorities who care for our citizens daily. Last week's scenes were utterly disgusting. Should anyone want a bit of clarification on how to identify racism, let us remember that 30 women have been murdered in Northern Ireland, often in their own home, by white men. Where was the mass outrage then? Where were the protests in the streets? Where were the attacks on our emergency services? They did not happen. Members, ask yourselves why that was so. Those who were responsible for what we saw last week should face the full consequences of the law and should realise, very painfully, that what they did was unforgivable and is not acceptable.

Miss Dolan: I express my serious concerns following the publication of a Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) inspection report on emergency general surgery pathways in the Western Health and Social Care Trust. Along with the majority of people in Fermanagh, I have long-held concerns about the temporary removal of emergency general surgery from the South West Acute Hospital. The RQIA report confirms that the temporary solution has been in place for far too long. Such arrangements have now been going on for almost three years, and patients and staff continue to bear the consequences.

Although the report highlights progress in some areas, including improved patient transfers and positive clinical outcomes, it also identifies significant concerns about communication, governance, staffing pressures and the monitoring of patient outcomes. Crucially, the RQIA report has highlighted the need for better information on outcomes across the entire patient pathway. Until that work is completed, important questions remain unanswered about the overall impact of the temporary arrangements.

Front-line healthcare workers deserve enormous credit for the professionalism and commitment that they continue to show in extremely challenging circumstances. For many people across Fermanagh and the wider south-west, however, the reality remains longer journeys for treatment, additional pressure on families and continued uncertainty over the future of services. Temporary measures cannot continue indefinitely. Patients and staff deserve certainty and confidence that services are planned around safety, need and equality of access.

The Western Trust must now fully implement the RQIA report's recommendations. I have contacted the Minister of Health to ask him to ensure that resources, workforce planning and infrastructure are in place to deliver a sustainable, long-term solution for emergency general surgery in Fermanagh and in west Tyrone. There must now be a clear pathway towards the return of emergency general surgery at the South West Acute Hospital, delivering safe, high-quality care while ensuring that people in Fermanagh and west Tyrone have fair and equitable access to the hospital services that they need and deserve.

Mr Frew: Last week, as was her right, Sian Mulholland raised in her Member's statement the issue of using petitions of concern. As is our right, we have tabled a petition of concern on something that we feel very concerned about. Like the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party states how important justice and the rule of law are, and its party policy is that the age of criminal responsibility should stay at 10. Its leader, Jon Burrows, claims that a change in that age would be dangerous, and we agree with him. He and his deputy leader, Diana Armstrong, have signed the petition of concern, and I thank them for that, as I thank our colleague from North Antrim Timothy Gaston who has signed it also. However, Jon is either the leader of the UUP or he is not. I ask the other Members to my left and those who are listening in their offices to please sign the petition of concern. Go along with your party policy and ensure that we do not see a change in the law today that will be detrimental to our people, to the victims of crime and to young people out there who may be targeted by criminal gangs.

We do not use the petition of concern lightly, nor should you, but nor should UUP Members use it as a wedge against their leader. I ask the UUP to put its dysfunction to one side and sign the petition of concern, which is consistent with its party policy. Let us ensure that we retain the age at 10. If that is changed in the Justice Bill today, I will blame the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin, but the public should know that it happened because of the dysfunction of the UUP. I ask its Members to think carefully over the next couple of hours.

Mr Donnelly: I will speak today about the attacks on our international healthcare staff. I begin by saying that my thoughts are with the victim of the brutal attack in north Belfast and his family. I hope that he recovers well.

Violence has no place in our society. Over the past week, Northern Ireland has made headlines around the world for all the wrong reasons. Images of families fleeing their homes, of homes and businesses being attacked and of buses and our infrastructure burning have travelled far beyond these shores. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has rightly expressed alarm at the violence, racial hatred and divisive narratives that have fuelled the attacks.

As a nurse, I condemn the attacks in the strongest possible terms and highlight the specific impact that they have had on people who care for us when we are at our most vulnerable. Over recent days, we have heard deeply troubling accounts from international healthcare workers in Northern Ireland: nurses who are afraid to travel to work, healthcare staff who are fearful of being identified in public and people who have dedicated themselves to caring for others who now question whether they have a future here.

Without international healthcare workers, our health and social care system would not function. The overwhelming majority of staff have come here from other countries to build a life, contribute to our communities and care for our loved ones. Every day, they treat patients with skill, compassion and professionalism. Let us be absolutely clear: when a nurse is intimidated on her way to work and chased by masked men into the Ulster Hospital, that is an attack on our health service. When a care worker is made to fear for their family's safety at racial checkpoints that have been set up outside our hospitals, that is an attack on our health service. When talented and dedicated professionals begin to consider leaving Northern Ireland because they no longer feel welcome, that is an attack on our health service.

The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland reject racism, hatred and violence. We value those who have chosen to make their lives here. We value those who have chosen to care for our communities, and we recognise that our health service would collapse without them. To every international doctor, nurse, care worker, healthcare assistant, porter and allied health professional working across Northern Ireland today, or anyone else who feels frightened or intimidated by the events of the past week, the Assembly should send a simple message: you are welcome here, you are valued here and you belong here.

Mr Burrows: Simon Harris's so-called blueprint for Irish unity and his claim that there is a duty on all parties to work towards Irish unity is a stunning example of tone-deaf statecraft. Under the Belfast Agreement, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom until a majority says otherwise. Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution were amended so that the people of Northern Ireland could get on with making this place work and making it peaceful and prosperous without a third country making claims again on Northern Ireland. We can dress it up as the Irish Government seeking a united Ireland, but let us call it what it is: one sovereign country seeking to break up another sovereign country. The Irish Republic is not simply saying, "We respect your right to have a vote, and, if that comes, we will have a vote down south"; no, it is actively attempting to change the constitution. Those on the nationalist and republican side have chastised UK Governments and Prime Ministers if they have dared to say that they are pro-unionist. Once again, we see double standards.

I have no fear of Mr Harris's blueprint, and nor do I fear anyone who seeks to make the case for a united Ireland. The reality is that the people of Northern Ireland withstood a murderous bombing and shooting campaign from republicans and an equally bad one from loyalists. That did not change their mind. Every opinion poll shows that there is no increase in support for a united Ireland. What the political class and the media commentariat elites do not get is that most people in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland just want things done. They want access to a GP. They want access to a scan when they need it. They want a good place for their child at school. They need jobs, opportunities and skills. Those are the things that make people tick. Unfortunately, however, the bubble that some people live in leads them to think that people spring out of bed in the morning and think of constitutional change.

Northern Ireland is at its most peaceful in 50 years. Bombings, shootings and public disorder are at their lowest level for 50 years. Economically, we are part of the fifth- or six-largest country on earth, which gives us economic security. We are part of the fifth- or sixth-largest country in terms of military might, which provides our national security. I give Mr Harris this advice: instead of a blueprint for Irish unity, you should produce a blueprint for national security for the Irish Republic, because it still relies on the United Kingdom's military prowess to keep it safe.

I believe in Northern Ireland. I believe in its people. They are a great people. This is a great place that has a great future in the United Kingdom. We can make it a prosperous place for all.

Ms Finnegan: Those were the words of 17-year-old Anthony Reavey as he recalled the night on which his family were slaughtered by the notorious Glenanne gang. Within moments, Anthony and his brothers John Martin and Brian were caught in a hail of gunfire as masked men burst into their home in Whitecross on 4 January 1976. John Martin and Brian were killed, and Anthony, having witnessed the horror unfold before his eyes, would later succumb to his injuries. Three innocent lives were stolen because they were Irish and Catholic. From listening to Anthony's account, you could be forgiven for thinking that he was speaking about the hatred and violence that we have witnessed on our streets in recent days. The targets may be different, but the actors are the same. There is the same sectarian mindset and the same belief that fear and violence can be used to terrorise communities. The difference in the Reaveys' case is that those responsible were not only loyalist gunmen but individuals linked to the very state forces supposedly charged with protecting the public.

Fifty years later, the Reavey family are still fighting for the truth. What has emerged in court is nothing short of scandalous. The court heard that crucial documents relating to the Glenanne gang and the weapons used in those murders were withheld from previous investigations, including those of the Historical Enquiries Team and Operation Denton. Information that should have been available to investigators was kept hidden for decades. The court heard how a British Army-issued Sterling sub-machine gun — the British Army said that it was stolen from a UDR base — was used in the murders of the Reavey brothers and linked to a series of other killings. It also heard evidence pointing once again to the involvement of serving members of the UDR and the RUC alongside loyalist paramilitaries. Perhaps most shocking of all is that the Ministry of Defence held information relating to the disappearance of that weapon and failed to disclose it in previous investigations. Families were told that investigations had been completed, reports were written and conclusions were reached, yet vital evidence remained buried in state files. That was not administrative oversight; it was information held by the state and withheld from those seeking the truth.

The courage, dignity and determination shown by Eugene Reavey and his family over the past five decades has been extraordinary. They have never given up, and they have never stopped demanding the truth about who murdered their loved ones and why crucial information was concealed. Last week, the British Prime Minister said that the state must hold itself to the highest standards. The evidence heard in court last week shows just how badly the British state failed that test. The Reavey family deserves truth —.

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

Ms Finnegan: The family deserves accountability.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Sorry, time is up.

Ms Finnegan: After 50 years of obstruction, concealment and —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK, Member.

Ms Finnegan: — delay, they deserve justice.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up, and I think that I have made that clear.

I call Alan Robinson. You have two minutes.

Mr Robinson: I welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister this morning that the Government intend to introduce a ban on social media access for those under the age of 16. The DUP supports efforts to better protect children and young people online. We have all seen growing evidence of the negative impact that social media can have on mental health, well-being and childhood. Research has highlighted links between excessive social media use and increased levels of anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation and exposure to cyberbullying. While social media can provide opportunities and connections, we cannot ignore the risks that many young people encounter online.

Of course, many young people use social media responsibly and benefit from it. Equally, many parents work hard to supervise their children's online activity and set appropriate boundaries. However, the reality is that parents increasingly find themselves in a battle against sophisticated algorithms designed to maximise engagement and screen time. That is an incredibly difficult challenge for any family to face alone. For that reason, it is right that the Government consider whether greater safeguards are required. At the same time, any restrictions must be accompanied by continued education. We cannot simply legislate and assume that the problem is solved. Children and young people must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to navigate the online world safely. Online safety, digital literacy and awareness of online harms must remain a key priority in our schools, homes and wider areas.

That said, we need to see the detail. Announcements make headlines, but legislation must be practical, enforceable and effective. Questions remain about age verification, enforcement mechanisms and how any restrictions would operate in practice. We should also learn from the experience of Australia, where concerns have been raised about loopholes, the ability of young people to circumvent restrictions and the challenges associated with age-verification technology. Those lessons should be carefully examined so that any UK-wide system —

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

Mr Robinson: — is robust and commands public confidence.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had been hoping to get back in to make a Member's statement, in part because I had requested an urgent oral statement. I am not challenging the Chair's decision, but I am asking for the Speaker's Office to look at guidance after the request for a statement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister was turned down.

I have real concerns about the lack of accountability over the response to the riots. I wanted to address some of that in a Member's statement, but, despite my role as leader of the Opposition under Standing Orders, I was prevented from getting in with a Member's statement. I ask the Speaker's Office to look at the privileges offered to the official Opposition at moments like this. Frankly, it is not a defensible position that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have not come here to give a statement. The Communities Minister is facing questions, but he has not come to make a statement proactively, and the leader of the Opposition has been prevented from making a follow-up statement, so I ask the Speaker's Office to look at those rights and privileges, given the seriousness of the situation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That, Mr O'Toole, will be looked at, I assure you. I also assure you that I should be able to make a robust enough defence of how I selected the Members to speak.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to introduce the Charities (Amendment) Bill [NIA 36/22-27], which is a Bill to amend the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 in various respects.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I beg to introduce the Harbours Bill [NIA 37/22-27], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to harbours and harbour authorities.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, take your ease for a moment before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Finance to move the Final Stage.

Dr Aiken: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are not 10 of us here.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Finance to move the Final Stage of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Today's Final Stage debate concludes this part of the legislative process for the Fiscal Council Bill. Members will be aware that the legislation is necessary to place the council on a statutory footing and to secure its independence. I begin by thanking all members of the Finance Committee, who have scrutinised and continue to debate this important legislation. During Consideration Stage, Members agreed that the Fiscal Council had already made a significant impact on improving the transparency, scrutiny and understanding of our public finances since it was established in March 2021. The Bill will enable the council to continue its work, operating independently from ministerial, Executive, Committee or departmental interference, and to access all government information that it requires to deliver on its functions.

During Consideration Stage, it was determined that we must ensure that the council's independence remained paramount. I wanted to ensure that we did not set up an independent fiscal body and, at the same time, legislate on a long list of asks that it must do. Where would that leave us when it came to that body having the discretion, flexibility and independence to determine its own work programme free from political interference and in line with OECD principles and best practice? However, I again emphasise that the Bill allows the council, should it consider it worthwhile, to consider the issues raised in the amendments at Consideration Stage around the Programme for Government (PFG), the impact of the Budget on the economy and the cost of duplication as part of its assessments.

During evidence from the Fiscal Council, the council chair confirmed that he was content with the Bill. I am assured that that is the case given his extensive experience within the fiscal context.

The legislation provides the council with a broad and flexible remit to assess and comment on our public finances and their sustainability. The Bill stipulates that the council must take forward two reports annually: a Budget assessment report and a fiscal sustainability report. It is then for the council to determine its work programme in its professional opinion with the resources available to it for other reports that it considers impactful regarding public finances. That means that the council can flex and change its focus on important issues as required over the years.

I look forward to hearing Members' thoughts and comments in the Final Stage debate.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Final Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill, which we paid significant attention to in the Committee; indeed, it is something that I and other Members have been talking about for several years.

The Bill is not extensive in size, but it is significant in what it seeks to achieve. By placing the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council on a statutory footing, it completes an important commitment born out of the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement and provides a clear legislative framework for the council's functions, independence and governance.

The Committee undertook detailed and extensive scrutiny of the Bill. It sought written evidence from key stakeholders, carried out an online public survey, commissioned research and took extensive oral evidence from economists and academics and a wide range of organisations including the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, the OECD, the NI Audit Office and the Fiscal Council itself, as well as from relevant departmental officials. I record the Committee's sincere thanks to all who contributed to our scrutiny. Their input enabled the Committee to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly, including from a comparative perspective, and with reference to principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and effective governance. I thank the departmental Bill team for constructive input throughout the process.

Throughout the scrutiny, the Committee's focus was not on whether there should be independent fiscal oversight — there was broad support for that principle — but on ensuring that the framework established by the Bill achieved the correct balance between independence, accountability, transparency and practical operation. Members considered carefully the council's statutory functions and the arrangements governing how it will assess Executive Budgets and examine the sustainability of Northern Ireland's public finances. The Committee examined closely the provisions relating to governance and independence. Members explored issues regarding appointments, access to information, reporting arrangements, accountability mechanisms and funding structures.

A recurring theme throughout the scrutiny was ensuring that the Fiscal Council remained operationally independent. The Committee welcomed the explicit protections in the Bill that provide that the council is not subject to the direction or control of Ministers and must operate transparently, objectively and impartially.

The Committee will continue to engage. It will regularly take evidence from the Fiscal Council, including, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future. We will be able to ask the Fiscal Council for its view on whether provisions and promises in the Bill, including interpretations in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), some of which were altered after engagement with the Committee, were and are being upheld. The Committee secured important assurances and clarifications, including commitments that reports, accounts, data statements and relevant notifications would be shared directly with the Committee for Finance and laid before the Assembly where appropriate.

The Committee gave careful consideration to whether amendments should be made to the Bill. I will talk about that in my remarks in a party capacity. Members were mindful that changes to governance arrangements in this context could have wider implications across other arm's-length bodies (ALBs) and therefore approached potential amendments with caution. Ultimately, the Committee as a whole concluded that the Bill, alongside the clarifications and amendments to the explanatory and financial memorandum, provided an appropriate framework for the Fiscal Council to carry out its role effectively and independently. It is important to put it on the record that those changes to the EFM came as a result of engagement by the Committee.

The Committee completed its detailed scrutiny of the legislation ahead of schedule — I think that I am right in saying that — and is content that the Bill provides a strong basis for improved fiscal transparency, strengthened accountability and better-informed debate on Northern Ireland's public finances. I again thank everyone who contributed to the scrutiny process and acknowledge the constructive engagement shown throughout.

I will now make a few remarks with my other hat on. The legislation that we are passing today is important. It is legislation that the Finance Committee, in its current iteration and in previous iterations, has been talking about for an awfully long time. A commitment to setting up a Fiscal Council was made in 'New Decade, New Approach'. The council was established around 2021 and has become a vital part of the policy and scrutiny debate in Northern Ireland. The Fiscal Council has proven that it can improve scrutiny. As someone who has participated in probably every debate on Budgets since becoming a Member, I can say that its work has provided an additional source of scrutiny and clarity for Members, the media and the public at large. Putting it on a statutory footing and ensuring that it will continue to exist is therefore really important.

I welcome the fact that the Minister, after prodding from the Committee, introduced the legislation. In fact, I think that it was his predecessor who introduced it, and he is completing its legislative stages. I am not trying to take credit away from you, Minister. I am just not sure whether it was you or Caoimhe Archibald who introduced the Bill, as I do not have that information at my fingertips. You both did well to get the Bill through. There you go: I have said something nice. The legislation is welcome.

I will make a few points about amendments that were not made, because they would have improved the Bill. The public are seeing at this moment that there is a real crisis in how we do Budget-making here. That crisis is not simply the product of poor decision-making, bad politics and a dysfunctional Executive, although that it is a large part of it; it is also the product of a cynical and dysfunctional attitude from London. That attitude reinforces and contributes to the Executive's dysfunctional and chaotic approach. Having an independent fiscal watchdog gives the public clarity about the choices that are being made and not being made. It also provides some degree of clarity when it comes to the claims and counterclaims that are made about, for example, Northern Ireland's funding position.

We had something called an "open-book exercise", the report of which was published recently. The numbers may not have been wrong, but some of them were clearly stacked and written up in a way that was designed to provide a jaundiced and slightly deceptive view of public finances here. One might wonder why the exercise was agreed to in the first place. It was the product of a devolved fiscal settlement that requires constant, dysfunctional bartering back and forward between London and Stormont and of an Executive who cannot sing from the same hymn sheet and agree a Budget. We now face the risk of a 5% cut on last year's Budget this year, because the Executive do not appear willing or able to pass a Budget in time for the summer recess. We have a better grasp of all those things, however, even if we do not necessarily want to, because there is now an independent fiscal council that is able to provide clear analysis, evidence and numbers.

I had hoped that the Opposition's amendments on providing additional economic analysis to clarify the impact of certain policies, be they on employment, productivity or whatever, would be supported, but they were not. I had hoped that our amendments to give the public certainty that the Fiscal Council would look at the Programme for Government as a priority and at the Budget that was delivered would be agreed, but they were not. An amendment on the cost of division or the cost of duplicating public services was also rejected. I deeply regret that parties — not the Alliance Party or the Ulster Unionist Party but the two big parties — voted against those amendments. As a gentle rebuke to the Minister's statement that it was political interference to try to amend the Bill in the first place, I will say that we are legislators. We come here to scrutinise, and I make no apology for that. We are debating dozens upon dozens of amendments to the Justice Bill. That is not political interference in the Justice Bill but legislators passing primary legislation. That is our job, so I make no apology for that.

We tried to get an amendment accepted asking the Fiscal Council to provide the same kind of independent costing of Opposition policies. The Minister is keen that the Opposition provide fully costed policies. I tried to do that via the Bill, but we did not get the amendment on the Marshalled List. I will not complain about that, lest I be accused of questioning the decision of the Chair and slapped on the wrist.

In total, despite modest lost opportunities to improve the Bill, I welcome that, after this, the Bill will become an Act. I thank the officials for their work on it. Our job now is to keep working with the Fiscal Council. I encourage all Members to engage with its strong work. The Finance Committee will continue to engage with the Fiscal Council to ensure that all the promises that were made about its governance are kept following implementation. Although we wanted to improve the Fiscal Council Bill, we are pleased that it will pass its Final Stage. I have been talking about it for five or six years, so I am pleased that it will pass its Final Stage.

Miss Dolan: The establishment of the Fiscal Council four years ago was a positive development in improving the scrutiny of our public finances. I am pleased that the Bill has reached its Final Stage, following a year of debate and engagement on the shape of the legislation that will put the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing. It will bring the Fiscal Council into line with best practice in other jurisdictions, safeguard its independence and protect its scrutiny role.

Evidence provided by similar bodies from neighbouring jurisdictions during the Committee Stage was helpful in providing us with an understanding of how they operate and what we can learn from them. At the same time, however, we must be conscious of the differences between this region and others in terms of the economic and financial powers of the respective legislatures and therefore the role of various fiscal bodies.

The Bill reflects our financial framework and how the Fiscal Council currently operates, while enabling flexibility for the future, should we receive additional financial powers. It is important, therefore, that the Bill allows the Fiscal Council to evolve, should more decision-making powers be devolved. I know that the Finance Minister is keen to pursue that, because, like me, he believes that the interests of all our people are best served by those whom they elect. The OECD stated that the legislation had been developed with the principles for independent fiscal institutions in mind, which was the foundation for the Fiscal Council.

The Bill will maintain and, indeed, strengthen the Fiscal Council's independence, providing it with the basis to assess the sustainability of our public finances.

Ms Forsythe: At Final Stage, we in the DUP once again welcome the Bill, which gives formal legal status to the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council as an independent body scrutinising Northern Ireland's finances. The Bill delivers on a commitment made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement by providing a clear legislative framework for the council's functions, independence and governance. I thank the Minister, the Department of Finance officials, the Finance Committee staff, my Finance Committee colleagues and all who gave evidence to the Committee throughout our scrutiny of the Bill in order to see it here today.

The DUP has been a consistent voice on the need to transform Northern Ireland's public finances. We continue to lead the calls for a fair fiscal framework in particular, one that is underpinned by Treasury funding so that it meets the objective needs of our vital front-line services. That need has never been more evident. I welcome the Executive's combined work on that and the united messaging on the need to continue to make the case to Treasury for funding here. The leader of the Opposition has once again set out his stall in criticising the position with the Budget, yet he has offered no constructive solutions. If the SDLP were in the Executive, would it impose and sign up to a Budget of catastrophic cuts?

The statutory grounding of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council will further bolster its ability to carry out independent scrutiny of our financial situation, continuing the excellent work that it has been doing. At this time of economic uncertainty, public-service delivery faces unprecedented pressures. Having that legally binding oversight body in place should help the efforts to place our finances on a steady footing, and, looking forward, it should spearhead the transformation that we need here.

As public representatives, we all know that nothing is more important to our taxpayers and constituents than transparency and accountability when it comes to public money. We need to take steps together to restore public confidence. To date, the Fiscal Council has demonstrated its positive impact in improving transparency, scrutiny and understanding of our public finances. The wide range of reports that it has produced far exceeds what it is required to do. We have seen many reports from the council, including one on the Northern Ireland Water funding model that demonstrated that it is neither fit for purpose nor sustainable.

That clearly shows the range of what is available to the council and its ability to scrutinise across departmental remits and address uncomfortable truths that hamper our collective ability to deliver for households, communities and the economy. The challenge from the Fiscal Council is so important to us.

The Fiscal Council has helped us to gain a better understanding of our public finances. The critical value of the Fiscal Council is in its independence. Financial reviews, opinions, presentations or bids that come from within government are often shaped, or perceived to be shaped, by a particular perspective. If the Department of Finance, which is where the council sits currently, were to present a position, there could be a perception that the Fiscal Council's position within the Department could lead to its bringing forward the Department's, the Minister's or a party-political view. I am not suggesting that that has, in any way, been the case — the Fiscal Council has been excellent — but the legislation will, rightly, remove that potential perception. We need to make sure that the independence of the Fiscal Council is paramount. Throughout the Bill's progress, that point about independence has underpinned our position on the Bill and the positions that we took on the amendments. Where the Fiscal Council sits within the Department, the perception that that creates, the budget parameters and the governance have been key.

The clear status of the Fiscal Council as independent is important. As others have outlined, the Fiscal Council has been in operation since 2021 and has demonstrated its professional operation and status, but it has been operating through the Department of Finance. The Bill sets the council apart from the Department of Finance. We believe in the importance of the council's professional independent discretion to select its topical work without political interference, which it has done exceptionally well, time and time again. We believe in the Fiscal Council's ability to apply scrutiny in its fullest form to all aspects of public finance, and we have clearly supported that throughout its work.

Other parties have seen an opportunity to bring political points to the Bill, mandating for specific pieces of work to be carried out by the council. When those parties did not get those proposals passed, they framed false narratives. The SDLP tried to mandate the Fiscal Council to produce costed analysis of the Opposition's proposals. That is somewhat unsurprising, as the leader of the Opposition never misses an opportunity, in the Chamber or on the Committee, to make the call for additional funding for Opposition services. In a point of order today, he asked for a review of the privileges that are available to the Opposition. That is a theme that has come through, but it did not pass in this Bill. The focus should be on the independence of the Fiscal Council.

The Alliance and SDLP wanted the Fiscal Council to be mandated to produce reports on the "cost of division", without defining that term or the scale of the work in terms of annual staff resources. The Fiscal Council already has the scope, the professional discretion and the bandwidth to consider all the costs of duplicating services. In the debate at a previous stage of the Bill, I said that I fully supported that across the board, especially in the Department of Health. The council does that in its work, where it is relevant, and does not need a specific mandate or applied staff to do it. The Alliance and SDLP amendment would have involved more cost for the Fiscal Council and potential duplication of its work. We believe that the Fiscal Council should be a fully independent professional scrutiny body that sets its own work plan, rather than its work plan being prescribed by political parties, and we have been clear on that throughout the Bill process. We believe that the Alliance and SDLP amendment would have involved more cost. We welcome scrutiny by the Fiscal Council, but at its own professional discretion rather than because of political intervention.

An array of false claims was rolled out by both the SDLP and the Alliance Party following a previous Bill stage, including on social media, to say that the Fiscal Council was being blocked from doing specific pieces of work. In fact, quite the opposite was the case. We fully support the Fiscal Council having full and complete professional discretion to do any work that it selects and defines. Nothing is blocked. To be perfectly honest, that is precisely what the Bill does: at its core, it allows scrutiny in its fullest form on an independent legal basis. Putting the Fiscal Council on an independent footing, with its having the independence and credibility to do all that work, is at the centre of everything that we in the DUP have decided as we have applied our scrutiny to the Bill. We fully support the Bill and, as I said, the delivery of the commitment, which was made in NDNA.

A separate point has come up in the Bill process. The DUP has long called for a reduction in the number of quangos and arm's-length bodies, of which some 140 are in operation here — a number that we feel is ridiculous for a country of this size. We recognise, however, that the Fiscal Council does not fall into that category. The Fiscal Council has been in operation since 2021, demonstrating its professionalism and status, but it has operated through the Department of Finance, and this Bill is just setting it apart in status. Its operation, structure and funding are already in place. This is about its governance, independent credibility and legal footing. It is not a brand-new body being set up, like the multiple new commissioners being established at running costs of at least £1 million a year for an array of causes. The Fiscal Council is a professional organisation already in existence that deserves full legal status.

We believe that the Fiscal Council should be fully independent. We support the Bill, and we welcome its further progression today. Again, we thank the Minister, the Department and all who have worked on it. We congratulate the Fiscal Council on its excellent work and look forward to continuing to work with it in the future.

Dr Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Fiscal Council Bill. It is something that we set out many Stormont Houses ago. It is so far in the distant past that we have forgotten how long ago it was. It was always clear that we needed to see what our government was doing and to measure it effectively. Time and time again, we have not been able to properly scrutinise what has come through or to look at the various figures, the Estimates and the spending lines. That is why, when the leader of the Opposition brought forward his amendment, the Ulster Unionist Party supported it in the Chamber. A degree of economic analysis needs to be applied.

The other key issue is that the Fiscal Council was designed to deal with a steady state, analyse budgets appropriately and follow the appropriate system, but, yet again, we are in a situation where there is no Budget. We know from various correspondence going back and forth from the Departments that there seems to be a definitive approach to ignoring the rules and regulations laid down in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and going on and spending anyhow. In that case, bearing in mind that the vires of the Fiscal Council Bill is for the Fiscal Council to examine the funding as it goes forward within the framework of a Budget and a budgetary process, yet again, we are outside that scope. I hope that the Fiscal Council takes its interpretation and ability to look at the processes as widely as possible, because I believe that, in the discussions that we had with the Department of Finance over the various things, and from what has been mentioned in the explanatory and financial memorandum, there is a degree of flexibility in the Fiscal Council to be able to achieve that.

The process will only work if there is openness and transparency and if the Fiscal Council can get hold of the appropriate data and report it back. The purpose of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and Committees in particular, is to scrutinise Departments, but it is quite clear that we do not have access to all the data. We do not have sufficient detail to scrutinise the arm's-length bodies, and sometimes the granularity — to use that horrible phrase — of the information available is not appropriate for the task ahead. I would like the Minister, in his closing remarks, to state what direction has been given to his Department and, more importantly, as his Department is the lead for finances across all the Northern Ireland Departments, that it will provide data and cooperate fully with the Fiscal Council so that we can get a degree of analysis and rectitude in looking at where we are and where we need to be.

I will draw my remarks to a close, because everybody has clearly stated their views, but my final point is that we have fought hard to get the Fiscal Council on a statutory basis. We need to make sure that it is not squeezed out or pushed into a corner just because it does not support some political parties' narrow views around how they want to do financing. That is the message that should come from everybody in the Assembly. The Fiscal Council is there to support us, and, bearing in mind that it will probably be one of the few organisations that will be guarding the guardians, we should support it.

Miss Hargey: Like everybody else, I welcome the Final Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill. It is good that we have got to this point. There has been some constructive discussion through the Committee and at each stage in the Chamber. As others have highlighted, this is putting the council on a firm statutory footing from where it was when it was established back in 2021. One important point that has been raised today in relation to some of the amendments is that, from the outset, it was always important that the Fiscal Council operate independently from the Executive, Departments, Ministers and, indeed, even the Opposition. That point is important: it is for the Fiscal Council to determine the work that it carries out. The council is about increasing transparency and adding to the public debate around our finances. We should not shy away from that, and it is welcomed by Sinn Féin. As Steve Aiken mentioned, it is key to the discourse on where we are with the Budget. It is important that the general public know that we are not financed on the basis of need when compared with Wales and Scotland. The Fiscal Council’s work has shown that the Budget that comes from Westminster treats us as second-class citizens when compared with the funding for the other jurisdictions, and that is not acceptable. If we were funded to the level of need, we would have an additional sum of between £1 billion and £3 billion, which would go a huge way to alleviating some of the pressures that our public finances face at the moment.

I welcome greater scrutiny from organisations such as the Fiscal Council, and it is important that they look at the broader issues going forward. As was touched on earlier, there have been some attempts to misconstrue the role of the council or to say that it is about trying to stop us from looking at the cost of division. I have spoken about those issues; I do not shy away from them. They are important. I have highlighted the fact that the cost of poverty is almost double the cost of division, but both are important areas for us to look at. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the Fiscal Council from looking at any of those issues going forward, which makes it all the more important that we have an independent council. The Fiscal Council’s two statutory duties are to bring forward a Budget assessment report and a fiscal sustainability report. The rest of the operational decisions are down to the council, and that is the right course of action. The legislation before us today strikes the right balance. If the council wants to look at other wide-ranging societal issues, it has the independence to do so, and that ensures confidence in the body among the wider public.

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, and I should highlight the fact that it was Conor Murphy, a Sinn Féin Minister, who established the Fiscal Council in 2021. We will continue to engage proactively with the council and others as we discuss our public finances.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, as Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Brian Kingston.

Mr Speaker: Question 8 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Tackling bovine tuberculosis is a key priority for me as Minister. The impact that the disease is having on the farming community is unacceptable. The cost to individual farmers and government is unsustainable. I was therefore pleased to endorse the 'Bovine Tuberculosis in Northern Ireland: Blueprint for Eradication', which was co-designed alongside key stakeholders on the TB partnership steering group that I established last year. The public consultation on potential wildlife intervention options, which is a key pillar of the 'Blueprint for Eradication', alongside measures on people and cattle, is being finalised. I expect to launch that consultation in the next few weeks. The consultation, which will be open for a 12-week period, will provide stakeholders and the wider public with the opportunity to consider the available evidence and share their views on the options set out. The responses received will help to inform my decision on the way forward. As I have said previously, any decision that I make will be guided by the science and the available evidence. There is no preferred option at this juncture. I encourage all interested parties to participate in the consultation to ensure that their views are fully considered as part of the process.

Miss Dolan: Thank you, Minister. TB affects the entire island, and it is important that we work collaboratively on it. Can you outline what engagement you have had with your counterpart in the South?

Mr Muir: There is significant engagement, whether through my involvement in the North/South Ministerial Council or through officials, who engage on an ongoing basis. There are also practical measures such as the regionalisation initiative that we are now delivering through the Shared Island funding. I am committed to respecting the fact that we live in one single epidemiological area. TB is a challenge, North and South. The Shared Island initiative is critical, and we will continue to engage at official and ministerial levels on that key issue.

Mr McGlone: Minister, around 19,000 cattle are slaughtered each year due to bovine TB. Can you give an update on any clinical trials in England and Wales regarding vaccination and outline whether any similar research is being done here in conjunction with them? I have a wee PS as well: what about the spread of TB through deer?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. Your latter question is more of an issue in the South of Ireland than in the North, but I acknowledge that deer are part of the wildlife issues that we need to consider.

On the vaccination programme, DEFRA is conducting a trial on that. It is being conducted in north Wales, as far as I am aware. I hope to visit that over the summer to see how it is progressing. It is important that we consider all available interventions. We will have to be respectful of the fact that we are under EU law in Northern Ireland and how that affects how we will go forward with any future roll-out, but I am watching that with interest.

Mr Dunne: According to a recent report from the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Livestock and Meat Commission that was launched just two months ago, TB is costing farmers over £96 million per year. Minister, when will we see direct action, given that, as you know, many farmers right across the country, including in our constituency, continue to face massive issues with TB?

Mr Muir: Significant action is already being taken on that. We have increased the level of testing, and we will go out to procurement on biosecurity advice to farmers. We are doing that in partnership with people, and that is why it is important that we have the stakeholder group. We will consult on wildlife interventions, and we want people to respond to that consultation. I want people to be assured that there are interventions on the three pillars of people, cattle and wildlife. I recognise the cost to farmers, not just the financial cost, which the report from the Ulster Farmers' Union set out in a very stark manner, but the mental health cost resulting from the breakdown of herds. There is also an issue with my Department's budget. However, fundamentally, I am on the side of the farming community, and I recognise the challenges. The issues are complex, but we are determined to push forward and implement the blueprint.

Mr Muir: My officials have discussions with SES about various planning issues as and when they are needed. I will be meeting SES representatives in the near future. Some recent engagements between my officials and SES have related to habitats regulations assessment requirements associated with poultry applications, including transboundary movements and land spreading of poultry litter.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his answer. When he meets Shared Environmental Services, does he intend to discuss any additional staffing requirements in order to meet the increasing demand for environmental assessments that are linked to planning applications?

Mr Muir: I will meet Shared Environmental Services on Wednesday. I am respectful of the fact that it is a shared service that has been set up by councils, so the authority sits with them. I have asked for a representative from the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) to be at that meeting, because councillors have a role to play. I get people's frustrations with Shared Environmental Services, particularly when it comes to an inability to get clarification on, and a response to, issues from it. That is why I asked for Wednesday's meeting. I will seek to find a better way forward, because there is real frustration with Shared Environmental Services in the agriculture community and a need to turn around queries on the issue that the Member has raised.

Ms Finnegan: I appreciate the response that the Member got, because there has been a lot of discussion about the role that Shared Environmental Services plays, about the need to get clarity on decisions that it makes, or does not make, and about the planning hold-ups that it causes. Is the Minister exploring any reforms of, or improvements to, how Shared Environmental Services engages with the Department on planning matters?

Mr Muir: As I set out in my previous response, I am respectful of the fact that Shared Environmental Services was set up by councils, so, ultimately, the remit for it sits with them. I will say to Members, however, that, when it comes to collaboration across local government, we all have representatives on NILGA, and they have a role to play in finding a way forward. I will do what I can, but I also have to respect the nature of local government. I will have that meeting with Shared Environmental Services on Wednesday, at which I will seek to find a resolution to the issues that have been raised. Ultimately, however, local government needs to act collectively to allow me to resolve them.

Mr Donnelly: What impact do reapplications have on slowing down the processing time for the DAERA planning response team?

Mr Muir: The impact is significant. My Department is actively seeking to improve its planning performance rates. Reapplications and re-consultations increase the planning caseload and put pressure on performance, however. It is therefore vital that reapplications and re-consultations include the environmental data and information that is required up front in order to avoid the need to go back and forth for information. That is a key issue for me. It is important that it be addressed by those making the applications in the first place and then by councils, which have to contact the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

Mr Muir: The sustainable agriculture programme, through its four key outcomes of improved environmental sustainability, enhanced productivity, stronger resilience and an effective supply chain, provides the core policy levers to deliver emissions reductions in the first carbon budget period and plays a central role in meeting statutory obligations under the climate change legislation.

The policies and proposals for emissions reductions in the agriculture sector that are included in the first climate action plan, and the emissions reductions that those could deliver, have been discussed on a number of occasions with the agricultural policy stakeholder group (APSG) and individual processor organisations. An agri-food-focused stakeholder consultation event, which included presentations and a discussion on agriculture sector input and land use, land-use change and forestry took place as part of the climate action plan consultation that was held last year. Stakeholders were also invited to the Met Office event that was held in the Long Gallery last week to hear at first hand about the impact that climate change will have on the sector and the importance of working towards our climate change targets.

Engagement with the APSG and other agri-food stakeholders on climate action will continue as we move towards the development of subsequent climate action plans and an agriculture sectoral plan.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer. It will not be lost on him that our agri-food industry is a prized economic asset in Northern Ireland, supporting over 100,000 jobs. Therefore, his climate change aspirations need to strike an important balance between protecting the environment and ensuring that one of our most important sectors continues to grow, thrive and provide food security to our population. I feel that the industry is not convinced that his approach does that. Is it time for the Minister to adjust his sights on the climate targets?

Mr Muir: I am very aware of the importance of our agri-food sector to our economy and, more than that, to our rural way of life. We are seeking to strike a balance between the two. The legislation that is being implemented was passed by my predecessor, and the 2022 DUP manifesto trumpeted it. Your change of approach to the legislation is not in line with science and evidence or the mandate that we have to deliver action around climate change.

Mr Blair: Despite others' attempts to distract from the real level of the climate crisis, will the Minister give us some more information on the impact that climate change is actually having on Northern Ireland's farmers and why timely action is necessary for a just transition?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. The locked-in impacts of climate change are already being felt in the agriculture sector through the increased frequency and severity of storm events; increased rainfall; extreme heat events and droughts; and new, climate-sensitive pests and pathogens. Changing weather patterns are affecting crop yields here and across Europe and damaging farm infrastructure. Unpredictable rainfall and temperature extremes are disrupting traditional farming cycles. Extreme rainfall and flooding events have caused significant damage to farmland, infrastructure and agricultural assets across Northern Ireland.

As a result of those extreme weather events, risks such as soil erosion and nutrient depletion threaten the long-term sustainability of agricultural land. Water scarcity during prolonged heatwaves and dry periods can impact on irrigation and the availability of fresh water for livestock, which adds further pressures on farmers. We have seen the impact that that can have on grass growth and silage production. Those combined impacts are expected to hinder productivity, limit economic growth in the agriculture sector and adversely affect rural communities, highlighting the urgent need for adaptation and resilience measures in response. That is why we have launched the third version of Northern Ireland's climate adaptation programme and are committed to implementing it, taking heed of the science and evidence and the imperative to act.

Mr McNulty: Farmers and the agri-food sector accept that they need to adapt to the challenges of climate change. However, they ask for clarity, support and a just transition. What more can the Minister do to support the sector? What more can he do to support the apple-growing industry in County Armagh? The crazy reality now is that 90% of our apples are imported, while we have the perfect growing conditions here, including in our Orchard County.

Mr Muir: The Department is committed to supporting the agriculture sector on climate change. That is delivered through the sustainable agriculture programme. Over £300 million in funding support is provided. We are the only part of the UK that has that ring-fenced, and I was delighted to do that. What is more, we are setting up a just transition commission to ensure that the views and voices of farmers are heard as part of the transition towards decarbonisation. In addition, there is a just transition fund for agriculture that is in its second year, supporting farmers on the adaptation and changes that are needed. I am committed to doing that in a just and fair way. The realities are there. We owe it to the farming community to deal with climate change in a fair and just manner, and that is what my Department is doing.

Mr Gaston: The Minister's draft climate action plan can be found on the DAERA website, where it lists a 21% reduction in agri-emissions by 2030. The colourful document states that this will be achieved by a reduction in livestock of 22% for dairy cattle, 17% for beef cattle and 18% for sheep, pigs and poultry. Minister, is it now time for you to come clean with the industry that the proposals that you are taking forward will lead to destocking of farms through either the draft climate action plan or the other measures that you are bringing in through the nutrients action programme?

Mr Muir: The climate action plan, which is from 2023 to 2027, does not recommend herd reduction. We are following a way forward with the science that we can use to deliver productivity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We are working with the farming community to deliver that. It is important that we not only heed the imperative to act but work with people on the sustainable agriculture programme and the assistance that we are giving.

To deny and deflect from the realities of climate change is a gross dereliction of responsibility to our farming community, who are feeling the effects of climate change. Those effects will become even more acute if we continue to do so and listen to the Member's friend in the White House, who is in a position of complete and utter dereliction of duty when it comes to facing the realities of climate change that affect so many people, not just in Northern Ireland but across the world.

Mr Muir: With an overall performance rate of 65% for statutory planning applications during 2025-26, I recognise that, in recent years, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's (NIEA) statutory planning consultation performance has fallen below the expected standard. My officials are committed to doing better through delivery of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's planning improvement plan, which was formally initiated in January this year. The improvement plan places a strong emphasis on getting decisions right at the earliest stage. Updated standing advice, including new advice for single dwellings, has been developed to improve clarity, consistency and proportionality in responses. Early evidence indicates that performance is improving, even in the context of sustained demand. From 1 April to 29 May this year, my Department received 688 statutory planning consultations, of which 96% were responded to within the statutory target time frame. The outstanding 155 cases are on track to meet a similar performance rate. Tackling the planning consultations that are outstanding from 2025-26 remains a priority. As of 29 May, 91% of consultations that were received in that period had been responded to. My officials aim to clear all the remaining outstanding consultations by the end of September this year.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will know that that is an issue across Northern Ireland, including in our constituency, where, even today, long delays in NIEA's consultee responses are curtailing economic development amongst other things. In the past five years, the Department's performance rate has ranged from 59% to 72%, which is simply not good enough. Minister, when will we see real improvement and action rather than just words?

Mr Muir: I will write to the Member to set out the actions that we have taken through the planning improvement plan and the further actions that we plan to take. We are putting effort into it, because we recognise that people need to get responses more promptly. We require help from other parts of the planning system, whether that means applicants or district councils, to ensure that we do not have high levels of re-consultations. We also need to make sure that people take heed of and understand the statutory advice, so that, when they put an application in, it is more likely not to require an elongated process.

Dealing with the matter requires resourcing. In our current financial situation of being without a Budget and the uncertainty around that, resourcing in the Department will become even more acute. We need to have a Budget and to be able to properly resource the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to do the job that it seeks to do.

Mr McAleer: Minister, one farmer of many whom I met at the weekend told me that he has spent over £20,000 on a planning application on which no decision has yet been made. Has the Department carried out any assessment of the financial impact of the delays in responses on the farming community, some of whom are trying to get approval for essential projects, such as slurry storage or new or improved livestock housing?

Mr Muir: I am conscious of the frustrations. Some of it also relates to wider policy issues and the need to reduce our ammonia emissions. We are working intensively with stakeholders to agree a way forward on that. There is a significant and sustained response from NIEA through the planning improvement plan. We seek to turn consultee responses around more quickly, but there is a role to play for the applicant in making sure that, when an application first comes in, we can give it a prompt response without there being an elongated process.

Mr McMurray: Minister, can you outline the situation regarding NIEA re-consultations by councils on planning applications?

Mr Muir: From 1 April 2015 to 20 May 2026, my Department received a total of 61,969 planning consultations across all planning authorities. Of those, 26,241, or 42%, were identified as re-consultations. Re-consultations can range from one re-consultation or, in the case of one planning application, to 16. We have been asked 16 times for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's view in relation to that application. Whilst the majority of those cases can be resolved after one re-consultation, the upper end, as I have said, is 16 times. That needs to be addressed and, through the delivery of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's planning improvement plan, work is under way to address poor-quality consultations and to reduce re-consultations by planning authorities by enhancing biodiversity checklists, defining a competent person for completing surveys and developing support tools for planning authorities.

Mr Muir: I met local government representatives recently to discuss a variety of issues around the Dilapidation Bill. My officials have maintained regular and extensive contact with council officials throughout the Bill's progress. I have consistently highlighted the fact that no discrete funding has been provided in respect of the Bill. The powers within it are discretionary, giving councils the flexibility to avail themselves of those powers as resources permit.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. Most councillors whom I speak to want to use the powers that are contained in the Bill, but they are worried about the cost to ratepayers. What can you do to reassure them on that issue?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Sinéad. The Dilapidation Bill will consolidate and modernise outdated Victorian legislation in order to help regenerate our cities, towns and villages by giving councils the powers to better tackle the issue of dilapidation. There has been significant engagement with local government, and I thank them for that constructive relationship. The Bill includes discretionary powers equivalent to those that are now long-established in Great Britain and in Ireland. We have met council representatives on a number of occasions and, pursuant to those meetings, we have agreed to table a number of amendments to the Bill.

The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs conducted an extended Committee Stage on the Bill and engaged with local government in that regard. I emphasise that the Bill's powers are discretionary. The Bill does not impose new statutory duties or financial burdens on councils. We intend to publish statutory guidance, giving greater clarity than exists at present. We will continue to work with local government on the development of that guidance.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, given the absence of clarity on funding for councils, do you not accept that the Bill risks being legislatively sound but financially undeliverable by councils?

Mr Muir: As I have outlined, the Bill's powers are discretionary. It is really important to have a wider perspective on the matter. Where there are dilapidated buildings in neighbourhoods, towns, villages and cities, that takes them potentially off the rates base and makes it less likely that people will invest in the area. It is in district councils' interests, therefore, that the legislation is used so that buildings can be refurbished and brought back into use and that neighbourhoods are not blighted by dilapidation. We are seeking to give councils those discretionary powers so that they can use them. Obviously, when councils consider the use of those powers, they will consider whether they will get the cost recovery associated with that. The legislation puts additional methods in place to allow them to do that.

I thank the AERA Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill and for its engagement with local government. The Bill will be a good piece of legislation for councils to use in order to address the issue of dilapidated buildings across our constituencies, which many Members have raised.

Mr Honeyford: Dilapidation is a major issue that damages our high streets and holds back economic growth and regeneration. I thank the Minister for joining me in Dromore, in my area, to see the regeneration that could take place there. How will the Bill empower councils to tackle dilapidation in the wider community?

Mr Muir: Thank you, David. It was good to be in your constituency to see what the potential power of the Bill could be. The Bill is an example of what the House should be doing, which is enabling people to do good for their local communities. Most of the powers that are available to councils currently are from the Victorian era and are geographically fragmented, so councils tend to make little or no use of them. The Dilapidation Bill will consolidate and enhance those powers, drawing on the successful use of legislation in other jurisdictions, which will ensure that we tackle dilapidation at an earlier stage. Currently, councils have limited powers in this area, but the Bill will provide them with the necessary discretionary powers to take steps, if they wish, to require buildings or land to be cleaned up where their condition adversely affects the amenity of the area.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, you said that there would be no financial burden on councils in carrying out their scrutiny and actions. I represent an area with lots of small villages. In many cases, there are buildings in a severe state of dilapidation. Can you assure me that, in the exercise of the councils' duties, the weighting given to those small villages will be equal to that of the larger conurbations?

Mr Muir: The Member is correct to raise that issue. Alongside the Bill, there will be statutory guidance on the exercise of the powers. It is important that we understand that dilapidation affects not just cities and towns but villages. The Bill will give discretionary powers to councils, and it is important that councils actively consider them. We can intervene at an early stage to ensure that that situation does not emerge. Across Northern Ireland, we have seen too many neighbourhoods where one dilapidated building leads to a second and then a third. That is why it is important to intervene. Hopefully, the guidance will give people assurance on the exercise of the powers.

Mr Muir: My Department has launched a 12-week public consultation on proposed measures as part of the bathing waters policy review for Northern Ireland. The consultation seeks views on a range of proposals to modernise and improve the bathing waters programme. They include how bathing water information is communicated to users; the length and flexibility of the bathing season; the introduction of a risk-based approach to bathing water monitoring; revised criteria for the identification of bathing waters; improved monitoring and management of candidate sites; the removal of automatic de-identification of sites; ensuring that monitoring locations better reflect usage patterns; and the consideration of wider stakeholder recommendations. In addition, the consultation provides an opportunity for members of the public to propose new bathing water sites through a dedicated application process. My Department will shortly host an information webinar to provide further detail on the proposals and clarify any queries from the public. The consultation closes on Friday 21 August 2026.

Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for that answer. What role will event duration monitors (EDMs) and near-real-time reporting play in keeping users of our bathing waters informed about water quality?

Mr Muir: Event duration monitors could play a key role in near-real-time reporting and therefore improve transparency and keep users informed of water quality at bathing waters. The technologies monitor the event and duration of spills from combined sewer overflows. That could improve public messaging, enabling more informed decision-making by bathers, and enhance public confidence in the bathing water programme.

My Department is working with Northern Ireland Water on a pilot initiative to explore the use of EDMs with enhanced data reporting to support more timely identification of pollution events at bathing waters. The aspiration is to have a public-facing version of the pilot within the next year. As part of the bathing waters policy review, my Department is considering how best to strengthen communication with users. Any future approach that involves EDMs will build on the existing bathing water dashboard, which provides an accurate one-stop shop for bathing water information and gives sound public health advice.

Mr Muir: The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) commenced an investigation following the report of a gas leak from the Granville Ecopark Ltd anaerobic digestion facility, which is located in the Granville industrial estate. Granville Ecopark Ltd holds a waste pollution prevention and control permit that is regulated by NIEA. An enforcement notice was issued to the company on 28 May 2026 in response to the incident. As an investigation is ongoing, in line with DAERA's enforcement policy, I cannot comment any further. I can, however, tell you that the gas network company has confirmed that it was not a gas leak, and Granville Ecopark Ltd has confirmed that it was a leak of the odorant used in the gas-to-grid process.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, the odorant is in the form of a gas. That company is charged with managing gas safely. What reassurance can you give the community of Granville and Eskra that the facility is managing highly dangerous gas safely?

Mr Muir: I understand the Member's concern. I will check with officials about the engagement that has occurred with the Health and Safety Executive on the matter. The investigation is ongoing, and it is important that we are sensitive to that, but I get the concern around it. I will make enquires with officials and then write to the Member on the safety issue that he has raised.

Mr Muir: Capacity and sectoral skills shortages are well recognised in the forestry sector and are a common feature throughout the UK and Republic of Ireland. That is primarily due to the increasingly competitive demand for forestry competencies to achieve ambitious tree-planting targets set by respective Governments to meet societal benefits and contribute to climate change mitigation plans.

My Department is due to publish the Northern Ireland tree-planting action plan, which is a collaborative approach that has been co-designed with sectoral stakeholders to deliver the strategy of 12% forest cover by 2050. The plan includes the consideration of education and capacity building to support sectoral resource planning and ensure that forestry skills and capacity are developed in line with the needs for forestry technical staff, contractors and managers across the supply chain, including for the next generation. That will involve my Department and stakeholders promoting forestry as a career and opening up opportunities and access to forestry education, training and skills for the Northern Ireland sector. The absence of the formal provision of forestry education in Northern Ireland requires innovative and bespoke solutions. My Department's Forest Service is assessing opportunities to develop forestry education and training opportunities, including apprenticeship and graduate trainee forestry schemes and recruitment programmes.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Muir: I take it that the Member's question is about the closed period for slurry spreading. There has been analysis of the science in that regard and of the importance of improving water quality and safeguarding our watercourses. I acknowledge the good work that farmers do across Northern Ireland on environmental stewardship, of which there are many examples. The Department's focus is not on changing the closed period; it is on looking at issues such as the planning process associated with covered slurry stores. That is something on which we are actively engaging with stakeholders, because that also relates back to our obligations to reduce the levels of ammonia in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will be concluded in the short time ahead.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that you agree, Minister, that it is important that we give our family farms all the reassurance that they need. They are extremely frustrated by the delay in the process of getting storage facilities etc through the system. What are you doing as Minister to deal with that issue and assist farmers in getting the storage that they need, so that they are not left in an impossible and risky situation?

Mr Muir: I am very conscious of the law in that respect. The Department was investigated in 2023. That report is available on the website of the Office for Environmental Protection, which undertook the investigation. There was a situation in which we were acting unlawfully. That is not now the case, but we need to deal with the practical issues. We have been engaging with stakeholders to gain an understanding of the challenges and come up with practical solutions on the ground, in particular, so that we have a planning process that enables the quicker approval of covered slurry stores.

Mr Muir: I am very grateful for the work of all stakeholders as part of the task and finish group associated with the nutrients action programme. Over the past number of months, they have been committed to finding a way forward that is workable at a farm level and contains practical measures that meet our legal obligations within realistic time frames. A significant amount of work has been undertaken in that regard. Hopefully, that work will come to a conclusion soon and the report will be published, after which we will undertake a further consultation on the measures. It is important that we allow space for that work to be completed, after which we will have that consultation, so that people can give their views. I have the utmost respect for all those who took part in that process, including the group's independent facilitator, Karen Brosnan.

Mr Gaston: I did not have the benefit of seeing whether the Minister delivered that answer with a straight face. I can only think that he did not. Given that it was exposed that a poor culture existed at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), with video evidence showing slurry being blown into a local forest, amongst other breaches, when will all the data behind the NAP proposals be published to allow the industry to robustly scrutinise it? Minister, to be brutally honest with you, you and AFBI have little or no credibility left among the agriculture industry. The answer that you provided sums that up nicely.

Mr Muir: When I come to the House, I do so to give my answers in a truthful and honest matter, and I take great exception to your seeking to impugn my integrity on the issue. Sadly, however, I am not surprised.

AFBI is DAERA's key science partner, delivering the majority of its scientific needs, and it is a key contributor to the needs of the Department and to Programme for Government outcomes. The Member will know from my statement in the Assembly in April that AFBI currently faces a number of key challenges, most notably with its laboratory facilities following an inspection report, as well as because of allegations about farming practices at the Hillsborough farm and because of the data breach. He will also be aware of an independent review of AFBI that my Department and AFBI have been considering. I have published the outcome of the review, and we will continue to implement the actions that I set out in April and the actions arising from the review. A senior partnership, governance and oversight board will support the advancement of that work. It will underpin and enhance departmental support and sponsorship for AFBI as we jointly implement the required improvements. Through the steps that the AFBI board and its executive management team have taken and the additional oversight mechanisms that are now in place between AFBI and my Department, I am confident that AFBI will continue to be able to deliver high-quality science services for the Department and the wider agri-food sector.

I come to the House and do my job because I seek to serve all the people of Northern Ireland diligently and to deliver for them. I do not come to the House to divide people, which is what the Member seeks to do day and daily.

Mr Speaker: Topical question 3 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir: I am very conscious that there is an ongoing court case dealing with an appeal associated with the A5, so I am limited in what I can say. On the Member's question about whether I have been engaging with Executive colleagues to change our climate change targets, the answer is no.

Mr Brooks: I say this: shame on him, because —

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Brooks: — that will no doubt be the first of many court cases. Our net zero targets are hampering the A5 project, and they will hamper the York Street interchange scheme. Experts say that they will affect pretty much every major road project that is proposed for this place. Is he willing to continue to risk lives and economic benefits, or will we see some common sense prevail on the issue?

Mr Muir: The Member conveniently seeks to forget that my predecessor passed the legislation. Your party —.

Mr Brooks: Not the amendment. Disingenuous. Where is the honesty that you mentioned?

Mr Muir: Sorry. Hold on. [Interruption.]

Mr Blair: Your Bill. Your Bill. Your Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister will be heard.

A Member: Not the targets.

Mr Muir: It was a Bill that was introduced by a DUP Minister, and you —.

Mr Brooks: Where is your honesty? You talk about honesty. Where is it?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Muir: The Bill was passed unanimously in the House at Final Stage, and the DUP put it in its manifesto and was trumpeting the legislation. It has now changed its tune. The shame that the Member should feel is because his party collapsed the institutions for two years and did not allow us to progress legislation and make the important interventions that we are seeking to make. If his party wants to see progress made, agree the first climate action plan, which I will be bringing to the Executive in the short time ahead.

Mr Muir: I am very concerned about that issue. There has been door-to-door engagement undertaken to encourage people who have any information to report it to their local DAERA Direct office. I have said previously and will repeat it today that the vast majority of farmers dispose of fallen livestock responsibly. Those who are engaging in the dumping of animal carcasses are doing great disrespect to the farming community. If done near a watercourse, there are also potential public health implications. It is therefore imperative that anyone who has any information come forward with it so that the people who are doing it can be brought to justice.

The locations at which the carcasses have been dumped are the responsibility of the landowner. The Department, alongside councils, will engage and intervene as and when necessary. It is an issue that is of deep concern to me. Local people have encountered those carcasses, and it is distressing, particularly for children. We need to get out the message that such activity is not acceptable and that if people are aware of who is doing it — people do know — they should report it and contact their local DAERA Direct office.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am deeply concerned about it, as well. He will know that I have raised water quality issues with him quite a lot. This is a water quality issue — right here, right now. I have previously raised with him a waterway that is adjacent to Rhone Road. Over the weekend, we have also seen animal carcasses dumped in a waterway on Tullybryan Road in Ballygawley. How can we be more agile in getting agencies to work together quickly to get those carcasses removed from the waterways? In the Rhone Road situation, which I wrote to him about, the carcasses had disintegrated into the waterway before any action was taken. That is a water quality issue.

Mr Muir: I have asked officials to ensure that there is one DAERA approach, because you have the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the veterinary service responding to it, and district councils also have a responsibility. Ultimately, we do not want to see this activity happening. That is one of the key issues arising from this. It can also take some time for people to identify and become aware that the incidents have occurred. Ultimately, the landowner has responsibility for the removal of the carcasses, but we are seeking to work with our partners, be that in councils or across the Department, on a response. I urge people to bring forward any information, if they have it.

Mr Muir: This is a requirement in the climate change legislation. I am keen that we implement our obligations arising from that legislation and set them out to the House as part of the debate on the regulations. That will ensure that our duties are performed in a way that is just and fair.

Mr Brett: Will the Minister outline what the cost of the appointments will be? From a cursory look, it seems as though it will be £500 per day for a member who sits on the just transition commission. Given that your front-line public services are stretched, is that a good use of your departmental resource?

Mr Muir: I believe that it is a good use of funding. Members come to the House and ask, "How are you going to ensure that climate action measures are carried out in a just and fair way?". I am making it clear that we want to make sure that those voices are heard. I am also making sure that I am listening to stakeholders, including the Ulster Farmers' Union, which welcomed the establishment of the just transition commission.

Mr Muir: The action that we are taking in that regionalised approach to TB is not the only intervention that we are taking. We are basing it on people, cattle and wildlife, and the biosecurity advice for farmers is out for procurement. We have also increased the level of testing so that we can have a better handle on where the infection is. That will allow us to get in early. We are also going to consult on wildlife interventions. Therefore, significant work is being done. I recognise that it is something that has existed for a long time. The levels are unsustainable, and we need to address them. That is what the Department is seeking to do in partnership with stakeholders. We have made significant progress in recent times, but we do not underestimate the impact that it has on the farming community, as well as the costs and the mental health impacts on farmers.

Mr Wilson: My focus is on farmers in my Newry and Armagh constituency. What immediate measures will be introduced in this financial year that will allow them to see a difference?

Mr Muir: There will be additional testing and biosecurity advice across Northern Ireland, and any wildlife interventions will be applicable across all of Northern Ireland. The regionalised approach is necessarily confined to a geographical area. That is why we are seeking to take action on a Northern Ireland-wide basis.

Mr Kingston: What key steps has the Minister set out to improve water quality in Belfast lough without stopping all development from Ballyholme to Islandmagee?

Mr Muir: I have legal obligations regarding water quality in Northern Ireland. We are seeking to have the inner Belfast lough shellfish area designated as a sensitive area, as a result of two reviews and a recommendation of my predecessor. I am seeking Executive agreement to that. At the beginning of March, I set out other actions that we are taking on waste water. It is not acceptable that Belfast lough is on course to become our next Lough Neagh, and it is important that people support me on the required interventions.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) legislation was subject to scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), which found that the amendments did not give claimants the clarity or assurance needed to remove the fear of reassessment. The scrutiny highlighted the fact that, although work itself would not trigger reassessment, work activities could still be interpreted as evidence of improved functional capability. That could impact on future work capability assessments or personal independence payment (PIP) decisions. The SSAC also raised concerns that claimants returning to universal credit (UC) may face stricter conditionality requirements and be exposed to a greater threat of sanctions.

After considering the risks identified by the SSAC, I have decided to monitor DWP's implementation of the scheme before bringing forward equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland. That does not result in any material change to the delivery of benefits to people with disabilities in Northern Ireland and preserves the flexibility to legislate later if DWP implementation proves effective and the response to the scheme is positive.

Miss Hargey: Thank you, Minister. Your Department's disability and work strategy sets out a commitment to investigate opportunities in the benefits system and benefit conditionality in order to help to address claimant fear or reluctance to participate in employment activity. While you are assessing what is happening across the water on Right to Try, what more can or will you do as part of the strategy to reassure claimants?

Mr Lyons: It is important ongoing work. We need to ensure that we have in place the support that allows people to break free from the benefits system. We know how difficult that can be, as one of the barriers is that people are concerned about the loss of support. That is why the disability and work strategy is in place. That work has to intersect with the welfare system to make sure that it serves people's needs and does not keep them bound to benefits. The transformation project that was announced recently will be so important in helping us to tackle economic inactivity, because it brings together the different sections — including Health, importantly — to make sure that there is integrated support that makes a difference to people here.

We will keep an eye on the changes that will come in the rest of the UK. Ultimately, however, I want to do what works best for people here. It is right for us to keep that scheme under review and see what comes from it. However, it does not result in any material change for people here.

Mrs Cameron: What is the Minister doing to support people into work and to encourage progression in employment to ensure that Northern Ireland works for everyone?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for that question. As I am sure she knows by now, that is a key area of concern for me. Our economic inactivity rate is simply too high. We have too many people on welfare, and that burden is being carried by everyone else. Many individuals who are economically inactive face multiple and often overlapping barriers, including ill health, disability, caring responsibilities and skill gaps. We will continue to deliver targeted employment support programmes, including Workable and Access to Work, which are provisions delivered through our front line, and interventions commissioned under the labour market partnerships that aim to help those furthest from the labour market to find employment.

Importantly, the Member also raised the issue of progress in employment. We should want for all our citizens that they continue to deliver and to develop their skills and abilities, so we want to ensure that we provide the necessary support for them. That is why the pathways to work and well-being transformation project is so important. It means taking a step back from what we have always done, and it challenges us all to redesign the current health and work system and to deliver something that is far more joined up and effective in addressing the wider issues that are preventing people from finding and staying in work.

Ms Mulholland: Enabling a programme such as Right to Try will depend on employers being able to provide opportunities. What discussions have you had with the Minister for the Economy to ensure that employers are ready and willing to provide such opportunities?

Mr Lyons: First of all, we have the disability and work strategy, which is cross-departmental and has been endorsed by the Executive. It is important that that is in place, because this is not something that I can sort out in one Department. The issues are multilayered, and we need to make sure that we work together to address them. That again brings in the transformation project, which is about working with the Department for the Economy and the Department of Health to make sure that we tackle the barriers to getting people into the workforce.

I have seen some of the excellent work that is already being done to ensure that employers are in a position to take people on. We need to help give employers confidence, because there are many of them who are perhaps unsure about what will be required of them. Often, little is required of them in order to make the reasonable adjustments that allow people to come into the workplace. That work will continue to make sure that we give employers that confidence and give potential employees confidence that the workplace is somewhere for them: a place where disabled people can not only work but progress. That is something that I am committed to. We see that commitment through the disability and work strategy and the transformation project.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, as part of your Department's ongoing work on the disability and work strategy, which you have just referenced, what engagement have you had with the Minister for Infrastructure regarding measures, including the provision of free travel, to improve access to public transport for people with disabilities?

Mr Lyons: Work on that is going on as a result of the draft strategy, and the Member will know that issues around transport feature heavily in it. Many people are concerned about how they can get to work. The specific issue that he referenced is one for the Department for Infrastructure to consider and take forward. His views are on the record, and I am sure that the Minister will take them on board.

Mr Lyons: My Department has responsibility for the legislation that governs Sunday shop opening hours. Any change to the hours set out in the Shops (Sunday Trading &c.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 would require primary legislation. I have no plans to review the hours prescribed in legislation and can confirm that no work is being undertaken to assess public support for the extension of Sunday trading hours.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your response, Minister. You will be aware of Belfast City Council's recent consultation on the use of the mechanism to extend opening hours over 13 Sundays this summer. In response to the consultation, 79% of people were in favour, as were 57% of businesses, and retail workers were evenly split. Can you not ask your officials to look at that response? There is clear support across the community for the change.

Mr Lyons: That was one consultation in one area, and the Member has rightly highlighted the fact that retail workers were evenly split on it. It is important that we recognise the concerns that many people have. Often, those who were opposed were the most passionate about their view, because they would be more impacted on than anybody else. It is clear that there is no consensus on the issue among those who are involved, which includes the 40% of businesses that are not seeking a change. Given the time that remains in the mandate, that is not the right priority for us.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Minister agree that the 'good jobs' Bill would help to protect the retail workers whom he referenced by unionising businesses and ensuring that workers get their rights, regardless of the changes that may happen?

Mr Lyons: If she is in favour of bringing forward some of the measures that will, she thinks, help and that have support across the Chamber, Sinn Féin should bring to the Executive a proposal to split the Bill. Those measures that —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: If the Member wants to listen, she will hear that we have a way forward here. We can split the Bill. Those measures that have wide public support — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lyons: The measures that have public support can go through. The Members opposite have been really passionate about some of the measures that have huge and widespread support across the Chamber. Therefore, in the meantime, why not proceed with the measures on which there is agreement? That could be done quickly by urgent procedure. If that were to happen —

— it would get broad support quickly across the Chamber.

Of course, this is what Sinn Féin does: it interrupts when it does not agree with what is being said. That is a sensible position that can be adopted, and I encourage Sinn Féin to do that.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, there seems to be a lot of misinformation on Sunday trading hours. We heard 57% mentioned by Ms Bradshaw: that is a change from 15% in Belfast. Are trade unions for the change? Is the position in Northern Ireland an anomaly?

Mr Lyons: The consultation that was carried out by Belfast City Council related to proposals to extend Sunday opening hours throughout the city during the summer months. The consultees were not asked whether they supported the extension on a permanent basis or whether it should apply beyond Belfast City Council boundaries, so the consultation responses cannot be interpreted as evidence that people across Northern Ireland support such an extension. I am, however, aware of the views of businesses, retailers and, in particular, retail workers who would be expected to work on Sundays. As has been pointed out, the views are much more divided from that perspective, with approximately 40% of businesses and retailers opposed to the proposals and retail workers evenly split.

As for how we compare with elsewhere, our Sunday trading hours, relatively speaking, mirror those in much of the rest of the UK. However, other countries, such as Austria, Germany, Switzerland and Norway, have an even more restrictive system. You often hear the argument that we are among the most restrictive in Europe, but that is simply not the case. As I said, it is not a priority for me as we head towards the end of the mandate.

Mr Carroll: Minister, do you share the concerns expressed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), which represents most of those retail workers, that allowing larger shops to open for longer on Sundays would have a negative impact on retail workers, their families and our communities and put more pressure on low-paid workers, in that they would feel as though they had to work rather than spend time with their family, with their community or, indeed, if they wish, at their place of worship?

Mr Lyons: My goodness, Gerry Carroll and I are on the same page for once. Can we all take a note of the date and time? [Laughter.]

Yes, there are times when we will find ourselves in agreement, and this is one of those times. He is right to stand up for the views of retail workers not just in the city but across Northern Ireland. I, for one, am delighted that I was here for that little moment of history.

Mr O'Toole: One of the points that some small retailers make about Sunday trading, whether or not this is borne out, is that, rather than supporting the high street, it would simply benefit big retailers. What practical progress are you making on schemes to support small businesses on the high street, such as the Living over the Shop (LOTS) scheme, given that we know that one of the things that can help to revitalise town centres is more people living in town centres, because they can avail themselves of local retail and hospitality? What practical action are you taking, and what money are you assigning to that end?

Mr Lyons: Across Northern Ireland, you will see examples of how the Department has invested in urban regeneration schemes. I will be in Strabane later this week. Work has been done in north Belfast, in Glengormley, and we have seen schemes in other parts of Belfast.

We have seen a number of smaller grant schemes to help improve town centres across Northern Ireland. Increasingly, in some of the regeneration schemes — the Member mentioned the Living over the Shop scheme — housing-led regeneration is helping our town centres. Help specifically for the businesses to which the Member referred is not primarily a matter for my Department, but we are playing our role in helping to improve public realms and town and city centres more generally. I look forward to further announcements on that in the days to come.

Mr Lyons: I have made it a priority to protect our social homes as valuable public assets, because every house matters. In 2024, my Department initiated a review of tenancy fraud policies and practices and established a collaborative forum, namely the tenancy fraud oversight group. That group works closely with the Housing Executive, registered housing associations and other key partners, including with representatives from the UK Tenancy Fraud Forum, to develop a more coordinated and effective approach to tackling tenancy fraud, identifying key issues and sharing best practice. Over a year ago, I tasked officials with taking forward short-, medium- and long-term actions in relation to that review. Those actions include a clause in the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill to allow a specialist team within the Housing Executive to investigate tenancy fraud on behalf of registered housing associations.

I hosted Northern Ireland’s first conference on tenancy fraud, in November 2025, bringing together experts from across the UK to share lessons learned. I also committed to publishing proposals for consultation, including plans for ambitious new legislation and an overarching strategy on tenancy fraud and misuse. Those will be brought forward by the end of this month. I am glad to have the support of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO), which recently recognised the value of that work.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister. The Audit Office recently reported that social housing tenancy fraud costs the public purse at least £8 million. As elected representatives, we know that the true cost is our families on waiting lists for houses. In its 2014 report, there was a recommendation from the Public Accounts Committee to bring forward an evidence-based baseline estimate for the true scale of tenancy fraud in social housing. Is that an additional element to what you just said you will bring forward at the end of the month?

Mr Lyons: My Department undertook two exercises — in 2015 and 2016 — to establish a baseline. Those were reported on at the time. Those exercises did not successfully identify a level of undetected fraud. We have been collecting data from social landlords on tenancy fraud and misuse since then, but I want to see improvements to how data is collected on suspected fraud, confirmed fraud and recoveries. A report on social housing fraud in England, 'Lost homes, lost hope', published in 2023, estimated that one in 30 homes is subject to some form of tenancy fraud, with many cases going undetected. The NIAO has recommended that we establish an evidence-based estimate of undetected fraud. That will require further work, but we are committed to doing that.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, of course we absolutely want to get rid of housing fraud in any system such as this; it loses us far too much money in Northern Ireland. Mistakes can be made during investigations, however. What appeals process can be built into the Housing Executive's investigation system?

Mr Lyons: Of course we need to make sure that housing fraud cases are accurate, and of course appeals processes should be in place. We will certainly make sure that people have the opportunity to give a true representation of their circumstances. Mistakes can happen, but it is important that we crack down on fraud, because, as has been pointed out, it has a significant cost to the public purse and, most importantly, denies homes to people who need them. I always say that we will have robust processes in place so that those who are doing the right thing will have nothing to fear.

Ms Forsythe: I welcome the Minister's continued approach to tackling fraud in our welfare system as well as in social housing. Does the Minister agree that it is hypocritical of Sinn Féin to turn a blind eye to tenancy fraud yet, at the same time, demand more social housing?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I have made tackling that fraud a priority since I came into office, which, I know, has been a source of frustration for other parties, including Sinn Féin. The issues are connected, because the fewer social homes that there are, the longer that the waiting list is. If people are committing fraud, I make no apology for making sure that we take appropriate action. We need to prioritise public services for those who need them, not for fraudsters.

The Member talks about Sinn Féin hypocrisy when it comes to social housing. The greatest hypocrisy of all from Sinn Féin, however, is the continued failure of its Finance Minister to fund the social housing development programme properly. If housing is a priority, it should be funded. It has not been funded, yet that is what we need to see happen.

Mr Speaker: Question 4 has been withdrawn, and Miss McAllister is not in her place.

Mr Lyons: The redevelopment of Newtownards library will deliver modern, accessible library services for the local community and form part of a wider cultural hub for the area. It is a key priority for Libraries NI, and its partnership with Ards and North Down Borough Council, which is leading the project, is important.

I can report that the outline business case for the project was approved in March 2026. That was a significant step forward and follows the resolution of the complex governance, partnership working and value-for-money issues involved in a project of that significance. Libraries NI and its council partners are now working to establish the arrangements required for the delivery phase of the project.

In parallel, an integrated design team has been appointed, with the intention of submitting a planning application for the combined council and library facility within the current financial year. As with all major capital projects, progress will depend on the conditions of approval being met and on the prioritisation of investment within a very constrained public-sector Budget. I remain committed to seeing the project delivered for the people of Newtownards, however.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his update. I will highlight the point that, when I was on the council back in 2019, it was already a long-standing saga to get the project over the line, so the people of Newtownards would welcome any progress. On that basis, can the Minister provide any timescale, given that we are years and years into the development of the project? When will the people of Newtownards see a new, redeveloped, fit-for-purpose library in the town?

Mr Lyons: I have been clear that Newtownards library is a priority project for me, and the approval of the outline business case demonstrates greater progress than has been made in many years. I hope that that is of some comfort to the people of Newtownards.

Governance arrangements are being finalised, and design work is progressing, so the project now has a clear pathway. I remain committed to delivering the project, and I will continue to monitor it closely as it moves towards delivery. I assure the Member that I will continue to engage with Executive colleagues as part of the Budget process to seek and secure the necessary funding for it.

Mrs Erskine: The Minister has not forgotten about Fermanagh. I welcomed his announcement of three quarters of a million pounds for the redevelopment of Enniskillen library. We went down on what was a very happy day to visit that library. Can he update me on progress on the redevelopment of Enniskillen library, please?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to tell the Member that the project is progressing well, with procurement to appoint a contractor at an advanced stage. Subject to the completion of that process, it is anticipated that a contract will be awarded over the summer, with work expected to commence on-site in the autumn. As with all capital projects, further progress will depend on the availability of funding. The Member has frequently reminded me of the project's importance, so I look forward to seeing real progress being made.

Mr Lyons: I have been proactive in taking decisions to improve support for victims of domestic abuse. I removed intimidation points from the housing selection scheme and ended the overriding priority that intimidation had over other forms of violence or abuse. That has ensured that all victims of violence, or people who are at risk of violence or abuse, for any reason, including domestic abuse, can access the same categories of points in the scheme. That has levelled the playing field for all those seeking housing as a result of abuse, trauma or violence.

I also tasked the Housing Executive to review the primary social needs criteria and points, including those awarded for victims of violent abuse and trauma. When the work concludes, the proposals will be implemented within the Housing Executive's timescale for the review in Spring 2027. The Housing Executive has also delivered against its domestic abuse action plan, which includes raising the profile of the sanctuary scheme, a multi-agency initiative to enable households at risk of domestic abuse to remain safely in their homes rather than present as homeless. The Supporting People programme also plays a key role in helping victims of domestic abuse access and sustain safe housing. Through that programme, we fund refuges and community-based floating support services specifically for women who have been forced to leave their homes. In 2025-26, that included over £3 million for 14 refuges and over £2 million for community support services.

Mr Burrows: Does the Minister agree that although most of us feel safest in our home, the home is where the victims of domestic violence are most at risk? Will he continue to press the case and look at every option, including some of the proposals currently going through in England and Wales, to make sure that the victims of domestic violence who live in social housing can either stay in their home instead of the perpetrator or get fast-tracked access to another home?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I know whose side I am on in that. If there is a perpetrator and a victim, I will always be on the victim's side, as we all should be. I have set out the work that the Housing Executive continues to do, but we will also look at the additional supports that can be made available that may already be in place elsewhere. We will always learn from best practice, because what some people have had to go through is absolutely horrendous. We want to make sure we provide all the support that we can. A lot of time, effort and energy go into doing our best, but we can always look at areas for improvement, and I commit to doing that.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, everyone deserves access to safe and secure housing. Over the past week, we have seen the opposite, with families being intimidated and burnt out of their homes. Larne leisure centre was targeted last year after your reckless Facebook comments, and that was a failure of leadership — [Interruption.]

— by you. Has that failure now been compounded by your silence and invisibility in the past week?

Mr Lyons: First, the Member is an absolute disgrace.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: He has done nothing but politicise the situation since it started. The Member knew that I was going to be at an Executive meeting to update my colleagues and that I would not be able to attend the hastily arranged Committee meeting.

Mr Gildernew: Nonsense.

Mr Lyons: It is not nonsense. I was at the Executive, and then I had other appointments in the diary. The Member publicly complained because I did not come to the Committee meeting. He tried to further politicise the situation this morning.

I can be very clear that I am against all violence and intimidation, regardless of where it comes from. I signed a statement with my Executive colleagues, and my position on violence and intimidation is crystal clear. I do not need, in any way, to look at my remarks and dance around them because, unlike the Member opposite, I always condemn violence.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: Unlike the Member opposite, I will never condone violence. I have always been against violence, and my party has always been against it. Whereas Sinn Féin is opposed to violence — sometimes. It is opposed to intimidation — sometimes. Of course, it believes that, in certain circumstances, there is no alternative to violence.

I say this to Mr Gildernew: I see your hypocrisy. I see exactly what you are doing. I see exactly what you are all about, and you are nothing but a disgrace because of what you have attempted to do. You have attempted to use the circumstances of the past few days —

Mr Brooks: Another dressing down, Colm.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lyons: — for political gain, and that is disgusting.

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Bradley: Given the latest riots, can the Minister update the House on how his Department and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive have managed those who have, sadly, had to leave their homes?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. While we understand that people are rightly horrified about what happened in north Belfast last Monday, nothing can excuse the violence and disorder that we witnessed in the days and nights that followed. Everyone has the right to peaceful protest, but, sadly, there are people who are intent on destroying the communities that they claim that they are there to serve. That is absolutely wrong. My staff in the Department and those in the Housing Executive have been working around the clock to ensure that the people who have been displaced are cared for and supported. That has not been an easy task, and I put on record my thanks for all their efforts to assist those who most need help.

As reported, by 5.00 pm on Sunday 14 June, 86 households had presented to the Housing Executive citing civil unrest, and 26 of those were requests for temporary accommodation. As a result of contact with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, those figures include 16 households being supported by Participation and the Practice of Rights and an additional 37 households being supported by other organisations.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: Again, I place on record my thanks to all the staff in the Housing Executive and, indeed, in the community and voluntary sector who have done so much over the past number of days to help those in need. What happened was absolutely horrendous. I have spoken to people who have been affected, including those who have had their businesses damaged and those from ethnic minority communities who are terrified at what has taken place. I want to be very clear, as I have been already, that the events were wrong and should never have happened.

Of course, some people will be entitled to support, and they will get it through the work of the Housing Executive and the support systems that are in place. However, we know that there are also those who do not have recourse to public funds. Where people are in emergency situations, advice can be provided. We have provided support to the voluntary and community sector, as I know that that sector will provide assistance. Last week, I activated the scheme on emergency financial assistance, which provides support to councils as they respond to recent events to mitigate the impact of the emergency. That scheme is effective from 9 June and will remain in operation until the situation resolves. That will include reimbursement to voluntary and community sector organisations that councils have engaged in response to the emergency. My officials have been in regular contact with Mears and the Home Office. There is strong and effective engagement between Mears and the PSNI and, indeed, Mears and a range of statutory partners. That has been to the benefit of all their collective responsibilities and roles.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. However, the point must be made that the Minister's perceived inaction on or indifference to the issue up until this point has been in stark contrast to the heroic efforts of the housing workers, his departmental officials, the voluntary and community sector, churches and the ordinary, decent Good Samaritans who have worked round the clock to ensure that families — their neighbours — are put somewhere safe. The Minister is right: what happened was horrendous. Sadly, it is not the first time that it has happened. We may hope and pray that it is the last, but I very much doubt that it will be. What is the Minister's message for those who took to the streets to air their "legitimate concerns", one of which is a shortage of housing, given that their way of expressing those concerns was to burn homes?

Mr Lyons: First of all, I am genuinely disappointed that Mr Durkan has jumped on —. Regardless of whether it is "perceived" or not and whether he uses that word or not, he has made a cheap political point. He said that he wanted an end to the Punch and Judy style of politics, and then he jumped straight in on that. That is really poor on his behalf. He should reflect on that. It was not the right thing to lead off with in his questions.

The second thing that he needs to do is differentiate between those who were engaged in legitimate and peaceful protests and those who were engaged in violence. It is not right that the two are put into the same category, because they are not the same. It is not right that that happens. As I have said in the past and will say again: the destruction of people's homes does not benefit anyone. That sort of intimidation and violence benefits no one at all. I am very clear and robust on that, despite the attempts of others to misinterpret the situation and the work that my Department — the Department that is under my direction and control — has been involved in. Often, there is more that we would like to do, but our teams have been working non-stop. I have been getting those regular updates. I have instructed my team to ensure that the Housing Executive gets the support that it needs as well. We have had joined-up coordination on that. I hope that people will actually look at how we can resolve the issues that we are talking about rather than just engage in silly political attacks.

Mr Lyons: I have been very pleased with the response to the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund. It was oversubscribed, which tells you a little bit about how much demand is out there in all parts of Northern Ireland for that fund. It is also a positive example of how two Departments can work together to deliver for communities across Northern Ireland. I am pleased to inform the Member that 521 applicants made it through to stage 2 of the process, and 243 community facilities were successful with funding. Moving forward, I am now working at pace to launch that as a baseline scheme. I welcome Mr Buchanan's continued support for that as well. It is another opportunity for us to highlight the importance of the community and voluntary sector and the work that it does every single day in facilities across Northern Ireland. Oftentimes, those facilities are not up to scratch. They are not as they should be. The fund goes some way to allowing those organisations to continue their work and, in some cases, to expand their work even further. That is good use of public money and good collaboration between Departments. We need to see that continue.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for that answer. We are starting to see the impact of investment into local communities through funds from the Ulster-Scots Agency and the Arts Council. In the past, Sinn Féin has been critical about your priorities, complaining recently that consistent funding for Ulster Scots and bands was for "vanity projects". Does the Minister agree that Sinn Féin should adopt a more progressive attitude and support all cultures, and not just when the cameras are rolling?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right. We have seen outright hostility from Sinn Féin on those issues, and especially from the Chairman of the Committee for Communities and the Deputy Chair. Sinn Féin has shown publicly disregard and hostility towards our marching bands and other musical instruments programme recipients, Ulster Scots and the connections with America250. Often, that party accuses me of many things, yet those Members are the only ones who have shown open hostility to any cultural organisations. It is very disappointing that they have done that.

We can see the benefits of that funding in our community. I had the pleasure of being at the UK Pipe Band Championships in north Belfast on Saturday. I was also at the Royal Landing event in Carrickfergus. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Cheryl Brownlee and her team for a fantastic event. There were thousands of people in attendance. It was a family day with music, pageantry and historical re-enactment. It was fantastic to see. We need more of that. That has been able to develop as a result of the support that we give to the Ulster-Scots Agency, and through our musical instruments programme.

I urge Sinn Féin to end its hostility towards cultures that it may not agree with. It has been on open display here. I agree with what the Member rightly said, and I hope that Sinn Féin will be more progressive in its attitude. Let us get rid of the hostility.

Some Members: Hear. Hear.

Mr Lyons: Sorry, but I do not agree that that is the case. We have certainly seen the voluntary and community sector play a significant role over the past number of days and in various crises that we have faced over many years. That is absolutely the case. However, the Member's question does a disservice to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and other public-sector organisations, including councils, that work very hard to assist those who are in need and to provide the help and support that is so often required. We had some staff who worked all weekend and others who worked long hours to source accommodation, assistance and support. It is wrong for the Member to characterise it in the way that he did.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, surely you acknowledge that the number of people who presented to the Housing Executive is the mere tip of the iceberg and that many families, whilst not technically homeless, were fearful of remaining in their own homes? Surely you acknowledge that the community and voluntary sector stepped into that space. What steps will you take to ensure that those public services are better coordinated should this recur? I am sure that we all hope that it does not.

Mr Lyons: I absolutely acknowledge the role of the voluntary and community sector. We want to do everything that we can to make sure that that support is in place. We will look at that, as we do after every significant event, and ensure that we can improve on what has gone on in the past. The voluntary and community sector has its role to play. and the public sector has its role to play. However, we also need to focus on making sure that we deal with the violence that we see on our streets. That needs to come to an end.

It is hypocritical of the Member to make some of the comments that he made about those who were involved in rioting, given that he is someone who gave a donation to the Minnesota freedom fund in 2020. [Interruption.]

Let us look at his $20 donation that helped to bail out George Howard, who had been bailed out on a domestic assault charge and was arrested and later convicted of second-degree murder in a road rage shooting. [Interruption.]

Christopher Boswell, a twice-convicted rapist, was released on bail and then faced new charges of kidnapping, assault and two cases of sexual assault. [Interruption.]

Shawn Michael Tillman was bailed out on a misdemeanour, and, less than a month later, he murdered a man by shooting him multiple times. We are often frustrated by Mr Tennyson's hypocrisy. That is exactly what I am referring to. [Interruption.]

The next time that he pontificates, maybe he should think about his own actions. [Interruption.]

He says that he asked me a question. I furnished him with an answer, but I also took the opportunity to expose his hypocrisy, and I will continue to do so.

Mr Brett: Unfortunately, there are people in the House who deal in deliberate deception. Last week, when I was on the streets of north Belfast, I phoned the Minister directly to ensure that support was provided to those most in need, and I thank him for that. Will the Minister take this opportunity to outline to those who sat in their armchairs and on Twitter — probably donating to other people who were engaged in criminality — what physical action he took, rather than sending meaningless and pointless tweets?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I was involved in the past few days in ensuring that the Housing Executive had the resources that it needed. I also activated the financial assistance scheme to make sure that any additional support that was needed for the voluntary and community sector was provided.

I am there to support the front-line staff. I do not do the job myself, but I need to make sure that the policies and procedures are in place. I have also taken the time to speak to those who have been affected. That is why it is so disgraceful that we have seen other parties attack in that way again and again. We know, however, that Sinn Féin has form when it comes to that, because the Chair of the Committee has been caught out before in what he said about the Place-Name Project. He made that up. He completely made that up. He has made up more accusations this afternoon.

We all know that Sinn Féin's relationship with the truth is distant at best, but we are getting into crazy territory. It is the last party that should speak about violence. My job is to make sure that the Housing Executive has what it needs. I will continue to do that and to make sure that that support is in place. The approach that Sinn Féin has taken is disgraceful.

Mr Speaker: Before we move to the question for urgent oral answer, I inform Members that a motion will come before the House that it may sit until 10.30 pm. That being the case, Members are entitled to overnight accommodation, if they require it. Some Members who come from some distance away may wish to utilise that. Tomorrow, it is likely that we will go beyond 10.00 pm again, as we try to finish the Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. The following week, we have an Opposition day, and the remaining three days will have Executive legislation and business throughout, so we need to try to conclude the Justice Bill today or tomorrow. There is a possibility of a further sitting on Wednesday. I wanted to inform Members about that at this point.

Mr Speaker: Colin McGrath has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): The appalling events of last week — I include those on Monday night — have left a mark on healthcare staff, particularly our international colleagues, some of whom have endured horrendous experiences. As I have stated many times, not only do we benefit from our international colleagues, but some staff groups depend on them. Without their commitment and skills, parts of our health service would simply collapse. That is a simple matter of fact; one that, I suspect, that the individuals responsible for some of last week's outrageous events either do not appreciate or perhaps chose to ignore.

Trust security responsibilities extend to hospital premises and grounds. Security issues beyond the perimeter of trust sites are a matter for the PSNI. I was in direct communication with the Chief Constable a number of times last week, and that contact will continue. Many of the issues with gaining access that were faced by staff last week related to disturbances in the surrounding areas rather than on the campuses themselves.

The safety of staff is paramount. A range of security measures are in place. Dedicated security teams are available 24 hours a day across our main sites. They are trained in the prevention and management of violence and aggression. They carry out regular patrols, monitor CCTV and liaise with the PSNI.

The disturbances largely centred on the Belfast area, particularly the Mater Hospital. The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust engaged regularly with the PSNI, including at a meeting with the Deputy Chief Constable on 11 June. That resulted in an observable increase in police presence in the vicinity and on the site of the Mater and in the emergency department, with police liaising with staff on the ground. Trust security staff and duty managers also provide a range of interventions to support staff that will be deployed, going forward, when required.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for his response and share in his disgust at what happened last week, especially to our healthcare staff. We saw the rioting, the racist violence and the mass disruption, and that prevented many healthcare staff from being able to get to work, which was sad to hear. We also heard that masked men set up a barricade and a checkpoint at the Mater Hospital. Staff sought an intervention from the PSNI and were advised to show their ID so that they could be let through. Does the Minister agree that that is not an acceptable response from the police? All staff who work in our health service should feel safe and secure going about their work. They should not be stopped by masked men as they try to get to their place of work to help people in our community.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question and for the interest that he has shown. I was in the Mater Hospital last week, where I heard a number of horrendous stories. I will not share them with the House, because the narratives would identify specific nurses and put them back at risk of injury or abuse. I heard, however, of one young nurse who had to negotiate her way through the rioters and the barricades at Carlisle Circus. That is not right. It is not right at all. That was the subject of one of the communications that I had with the Chief Constable. I assure the Member that Mr Boutcher took the issue very seriously indeed.

Mr McGuigan: Last week's acts of racism and the threats against our healthcare workers were an absolute disgrace. The Minister has articulated how much our healthcare service depends on people who come from outside the island to help out. Given that, has the Minister or the Department assessed in the short term or even the medium term the damage that the recent violence has done to staffing levels, attendance rates and healthcare service delivery? Is the Minister concerned that such incidents of racism and threats against our healthcare staff could undermine efforts to recruit international staff to our health service and retain them?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not have those statistics to hand. It is hard to measure in a statistical way the impact on morale, on people feeling safe or on the number of our international colleagues who now feel that the situation has become so dire that they are no longer prepared to stay with us. I tell them that they are welcome, that they are treasured and that we want them to stay. I would not, however, encourage a single person to stay if they felt that they were putting themselves at risk physically or at risk of psychological torture. I will be clear that that is what has been happening.

It is not just about the hospitals. I was in Ballyclare last week, where I visited an advice centre for international colleagues working in healthcare. It had been attacked, and the windows were cracked. Down the street, a community domiciliary care team comprised largely of international colleagues were frightened to go about their business. They work across Northern Ireland and are frightened to go to help people.

Mr Ogilvie was tended to by healthcare workers. I do not know who was on that team, but I would be surprised if there were not international colleagues who helped that man.

The people who are out rioting, who are racists, do not care. That is appalling. Let us remember that healthcare workers are attacked daily in our emergency departments and in our hospitals by indigenous people from this part of planet earth. The last thing that those workers need is a layer of racism on top.

Mr Robinson: Like others, I condemn outright any threat to any healthcare worker in the Province. Can the Minister detail to the House how many international healthcare workers have left their role as a result of the recent unrest? What support is being offered to staff who have experienced intimidation, harassment or fear?

Mr Nesbitt: On the Member's second question, all the trusts have protocols in place to provide physical and psychological support to anybody who works in our Health and Social Care (HSC) system who is under attack or under threat. I have not had a report on the number of staff who have left. If people are leaving, I expect to be told, but I have not had any reports of anybody having left. Once again, however, if people are leaving, no one in the House could blame them for doing so.

It is not just in our hospitals. It happens to people working in domiciliary care — home care — delivery. Remember that, when you knock on somebody's front door, you do not know what to expect. You know that you are tending to a service user or a patient, but you do not know who else is in the house. You do not know who is lurking round the back. Those workers put themselves potentially in harm's way, yet we reward them with racist attacks. Seriously?

Mr Donnelly: Our international healthcare staff are needed and valued, but they are worried and fearful for their safety and that of their families, including their children. School principals have told us that some children from ethnic minority backgrounds have stayed away from school over the past week owing to fears about travelling and being out in the community. Beyond making statements of support, what practical action in terms of workplace support is the Minister taking to ensure that international healthcare workers feel that their concerns are being heard and that they can safely continue to work in Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that their concerns are being heard. I hope that I demonstrate that by visiting not just hospitals but places such as the one in Ballyclare that I mentioned. I will continue to do that. For the past two years, I have been out every week, at least once a week, visiting Health and Social Care settings. I would like to think that the Health and Social Care workforce understand that I am interested and am listening.

When it comes to what is happening outside of Health and Social Care settings, the police clearly have a role. When the children of international colleagues are afraid to go to school, that stretches beyond what the Department of Health can do, apart from speaking in their support and liaising with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in particular, as well as social services where appropriate.

We have to take the matter as seriously as anything that has happened during the mandate. I have been attacked many times on social media because yesterday, on television, I said that what had happened was a stain on this country locally, nationally and internationally. I stand by that statement, despite what people say. People ask, "Why are we bringing people in? Why are we not training up more local people?". We are training up more local people than ever, but we cannot get enough of them to ensure that the system does not collapse without our international colleagues.

Mr Chambers: Minister, I join you in totally condemning last week's violence. I will always defend freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest, but that comes with responsibility. Obviously, last week, lines were crossed.

Does the Minister agree that the strongest response that we can give is to stand firmly alongside our international healthcare workers and reassure them that they are not visitors to our health service but an essential and valued part of it, as are all members of our dedicated health workforce?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I absolutely give that assurance. The last point that the Member made about the entire workforce in Health and Social Care is important to me. On Wednesday night, I was in Lisburn, in the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service's command and control centre. The previous night, it had received more than 300 phone calls. That is the highest number that anybody in that room could remember, and some of them have been in the Fire and Rescue Service for over 20 years. They said that it was much worse than the Eleventh night bonfires.

There were 31 fire trucks in Belfast last Tuesday night, 21 of which did not belong in Belfast. They had come from fire stations here, there and everywhere. That was a third of the entire fleet. Are you telling me that that level of resource can be diverted without a potential impact on business as normal elsewhere — on road traffic collisions, house fires and all the rest that the Fire and Rescue Service cannot predict? Are you telling me that those firefighters could look at me and say, with 100% certainty, "This does not put other areas at risk"? No, they could not.

Then they saw on social media that long list of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). I saw in the eyes of the senior leadership of the Fire and Rescue Service not fear but recognition that, if the attacks on those homes were widespread, they would not be able to handle them. They would not have had the numbers of trucks or personnel to handle that level of attack and lives would have been at risk.

Firefighters put themselves in harm's way daily to save lives. I urge the Health Committee to visit firefighters again, just to reassure them.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, I support what you have just said, particularly about the Fire Service. We had the Fire Service in front of the Committee a number of weeks ago, when it outlined the stress and pressure that it is under and the fact that its officers put themselves at risk every time that they are called out. It is important that we put on record our support for the Fire Service in these very difficult times.

It is also important that we look at where the risk to health staff was. The Northern Health and Social Care Trust notified home care workers across the Northern Trust area that they should not attend their domiciliary care patients. I am very proud to represent the proud community of Mid Ulster. Health care workers and domiciliary care workers did not go out to the rural area of Kildress —

Mr Speaker: Can we get the question, please, Mrs Dillon?

Mrs Dillon: — on that day. Older people in that area very much need that service. I assure you that the people of Kildress pose no risk to anybody of any colour; they are good, decent people who are disgusted by the racism of some in this place. I stress "some", because it is certainly not reflective —

Mr Speaker: Mrs Dillon —

Mrs Dillon: — of the community here.

Mr Speaker: — this is not an opportunity for speeches. Can we have a question?

Mrs Dillon: Minister, will you assure us that that will not happen again and that individual assessments will be done in some areas? The people in my area pose no risk to anybody —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mrs Dillon: — of any colour.

Mr Nesbitt: I expect risk assessments to be done on a case-by-case basis. I am aware of one care home — I do not want to identify it — where the workforce is 85% international colleagues. They were extremely worried, and there was a question about whether that would impact on service delivery in that home.

On Tuesday night, I received an early alert from the Mater Hospital; it was concerned about staffing in the emergency department dropping below safe levels. Thankfully, that did not happen, but there was a risk that the emergency department of the Mater Hospital would have to close on Tuesday night, leaving the entire Belfast Health and Social Care Trust with one emergency department for the capital city.

The Fire Service was impeded from attending fires, and some firefighters were physically attacked. If you think about it, a mob of rioters intent on burning a building will of course try to stop the Fire Service, because it is intent on putting that fire out. Thankfully, I do not think that the Ambulance Service got it as hard, but it was doing things that nobody should have to do in a First World country a quarter of the way into the 21st century.

Mrs Cameron: This question for urgent oral answer is really important. I thank the Minister for calling out to meet members of the Ballyclare ethnic minority healthcare workers' advice hub and Support Care. It is really important for us, as local representatives, to see the Health Minister out supporting those valuable workers.

I put on record the wonderful work that international healthcare workers do. I thank God that they come to this country, bringing their expertise to help and care for us. Minister, do you agree that violence and intimidation is wrong and has always been wrong, regardless of the colour of someone's skin? The reason why we should not attack people is not the fact that they are coming here and working for us; it is because it is simply wrong.

Mr Nesbitt: Yes. Staff at the Ballyclare advice centre said that they were the target of misinformation. Somebody asked them, "Are you sheltering boat people?". Misinformation has always existed. The Nazis specialised in misinformation, but they did not have social media. This the problem with the modern world. There is an old expression that the lie is halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. That is happening in spades in the modern world. There was misinformation about that.

Yes, all attacks are wrong, and, as I said a little earlier, thousands of attacks on Health and Social Care workers have happened in our hospitals, and not necessarily because of race. They are happening for a variety of reasons, and not one of them is justifiable. Yet those wonderful 75,000 or 76,000 people who make up the workforce keep turning up for work. They keep going to strangers and saving their lives, knowing that they will probably never see them again. There is a magnificent combination of professionalism based on their training and their experience and compassion based on their empathy and their humanity. Those are not traits that I saw on the streets of east Belfast last week.

Mr McMurray: Minister, hateful as it is to hear it, I appreciate the candid nature in which you have given some of the information. I express my solidarity with all of what you have said and with all of our health workers, who contribute so much to the community and society.

Minister, will the Department and the trusts report and how will they report any increases in concerns, in absence and in resignations related to the recent incidents? Is there a process between the PSNI, the trusts and the Department should racial abuse be reported by workers?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I will expect to receive reports from the trusts, first of all, if there are any resignations. That is a hard number that they should be able to provide easily. Also, I would like a more qualitative response from the trusts on their assessment of morale and who is thinking of leaving and who is really upset.

In terms of the attacks, there is an issue that, if you are a health worker and are attacked, it is currently up to you to take action through the courts. I have spoken to the Justice Minister, who is bringing a victims and witnesses of crime Bill. Through officials in both Departments, we are scoping out whether there is a potential to put in an amendment that would give powers to employers to further support their staff in taking action against anybody who abuses Health and Social Care staff. I spoke to a young nurse in Altnagelvin a while ago who had been badly physically abused. She was making the point that she had to get a solicitor if she wanted to take action against that person, because the law currently does not permit the trust to take action on her behalf. Maybe, in that Bill, there is an opportunity to change that and bring the full force of the Health and Social Care system, not the force of one young person, against the abusers.

Mr Carroll: I agree with your sentiment and your words, Minister. Can you indicate whether your Department has been in conversations with the trusts and healthcare workers about extended leave for people who are trying to rebuild their homes or their lives after their homes were burnt out and they were threatened over the past week? Have there been any discussions at Executive level to ensure that healthcare workers are not at a financial loss because of being burnt out or because of being prevented from going to work because of the events last week?

Mr Nesbitt: First, on the Executive, I am glad that the First Minister and deputy First Minister joined me at the Mater to show solidarity. That was a very important image to send out. Giving staff additional time off to rebuild will be a matter for the trusts. I would be extremely disappointed if they did not make that facility available to people. I was making the point yesterday that the BBC showed a montage of trouble, and I think that we all saw the family that was bundled into the back of a police Land Rover. I am told that the mother is a nurse. I do not want to go further than that, but she is a nurse and they were having to leave because the house next door had been set fire to.

As for what sort of compensation arrangements are put in place, I am not aware of that, but I say to the Member that I am keen to be told of that. I will be asking that question over the course of this week. We talk a lot about being candid, being open, being this and being that. The phrase that I like for Health and Social Care is, "Be human". If it were you, what would you want us as a health and social care service to do for you?

Mr Kingston: I join others in condemning the disgraceful violence and intimidation of the past week. I will continue to express support and appreciation for our healthcare workers who have come here from overseas. Has the Minister had time to engage with any of the representative and support bodies for international colleagues, such as the Northern Ireland Indian Nurses Forum?

Mr Nesbitt: As yet, I have not. I have been making it my business to be across the impact of that unacceptable week of violence on the health and social care system. I have engaged with a number of representative bodies in the past, and I will continue to do so on foot of what happened last week. I will also take what I consider to be an appropriate interest in a case. As a Minister, I should not be getting involved in individual cases, but I wish to make an exception and take an interest in Mr Ogilvie's ongoing healthcare requirements.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Minister, for your "No ifs or buts" and robust comments around all of the horrific incidents that happened last week.

Minister, will you join me in condemning the ripping down of railings outside the operating theatre at Whiteabbey Hospital, which were ultimately used as spears to throw at the police in a riot at Cloughfern corner? What is the impact now and what will the ongoing impact be on your ability to carry out the international recruitment into Northern Ireland of vitally needed healthcare workers?

Mr Nesbitt: I am shocked; I was not aware. I will follow up on that incident in Whiteabbey. Good God.

If we do not have our international colleagues, the health service collapses. Let us be straight about that. We simply do not have the capacity without them. We have to continue to recruit. Over the two years in which I have been in post, I have been to Altnagelvin, where there is a centre for acclimatisation for international colleagues; I have been in Daisy Hill, where I have met international doctors from India who are working at Daisy Hill and Craigavon — in the Southern Trust, effectively; and, last week, I was at the day procedure unit in Omagh, which is doing fabulous work. There is one procedure for which, not long ago, the waiting list was over four years. It is now coming down to less than 26 weeks. The driver of that procedure is one consultant: he is a Muslim. He is not from these parts, but I tell you this: he is so dedicated to this place, and he is so committed to the Health and Social Care system. He is a star, yet the people on the streets last week would send him back.

Mr McNulty: Minister, thank you for your forthrightness and your unambiguous statements of reassurance to our international healthcare workers. In the Public Gallery, we have a number of international healthcare workers who bring a level of compassion, care and expertise that keeps our health service on its feet. Once again, can you reassure them and tell them that they are valued and welcome; that their compassion, care and bravery are essential; and that we want them to stay here and keep going?

Mr Nesbitt: I can tell them that 100%. They are essential, welcome and valued, and they bring compassion and expertise. They bring something else that I should mention. I see it once a year when they have an annual conference at Stranmillis University College; in fact, it is not just there that I see it. As well as that compassion and professionalism, do you know what else they bring? They bring joy to Health and Social Care. If you are lying in a bed, sick and worried about your future, a nurse tending you with joy is so important, and I thank them for it.

Mrs Erskine: I was horrified at the riots that took place in Northern Ireland, which were really dark. On Friday, in my constituency in the Western Trust area, political parties stood together at the South West Acute Hospital and Altnagelvin Area Hospital sites to say no to racist abuse and intimidation of our healthcare staff. Whilst I understand people's right to protest, it crossed a line. Violence is wrong, and we have to condemn it side by side.

I was cared for in hospital, and my daughter was cared for in hospital, by international doctors and nurses, and I want to say, "Thank you" to them.

Sorry.

I want to ensure that they feel safe, that they are protected and that they are valued in our health service. The abuse has not been isolated to recent days; it has been present for healthcare staff for quite some time. Minister, will you, please, work with the Justice Minister and all Ministers to ensure that the perpetrators of that racial abuse stop and are held to account?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. That was a very difficult intervention but a very important one because it proves something that is absolutely fundamental, which is that all healthcare is personal. It is as personal as it gets. They have done wonders for you. I get really fed up when people say that the health and social care system is broken: it is not. The pathways in are badly damaged because we have long waiting lists, but, once you get there, the service that you get is world class. I am so pleased that you and your baby got world-class treatment. It does not matter whether they were international colleagues or indigenous workers; they are meeting a stranger who is having problems — in the Member's case, with a pregnancy — and they pull out all the stops. They do their best to get you to a better place because they have commitment, and that is magnificent, even though they will probably never see you again. I thank you for sharing.

Ms Forsythe: I thank my colleague Deborah Erskine for speaking in such a heartfelt way on the issue. We know the amazing job that healthcare workers did for Deborah and Olivia. Minister, I welcome your firm message here today and over the past week. As Deborah outlined, however, a lot of these issues happen all the time. They did not just flare up in the week when we saw that absolutely horrific violence on the streets. There is a temptation for some now that that is not as visible that everyone steps back from the issue. What forums are in place where healthcare workers from across the board can come forward and highlight the issues that are ongoing for them, week in, week out, so that those issues can be picked up and addressed — you used the example of carers going into homes, where vulnerabilities or dangers may lie — and so that we can work together to support them where needs are not seen?

Mr Nesbitt: All trusts have fora for engagement with staff. All trusts recognise the relevant trade unions, which are another channel for expressing concerns or discussing how we might better support all staff and not just international colleagues, although it is clear that international colleagues have concerns at this time. I fear that those concerns will remain valid and that racism is not going to go away. It may have left our streets and may stay off our streets, and I certainly hope that it does, but there are fundamentals underlying that.

Domiciliary care and community capacity are a bit more difficult, because a lot of it is managed by private care providers. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority will undertake inspection and speak to everybody in Health and Social Care who provides care. Mechanisms, procedures and protocols are therefore in place to try to ensure that we continually focus on the safety of our staff and workforce.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister and Members. I will make a comment. My daughter works in a specialist unit. Thousands of people from all over the community are alive because of its work. That work, be it at a clinical, nursing or support level, could not continue without international workers. I thank you, Minister. That business was very positive.

Mr Kingston: As a DUP member of the Committee for Finance, I welcome the fact that the Bill has reached its Final Stage. As other Members have said, the Fiscal Council was a key commitment in the New Decade, New Approach deal. It was established in March 2021 to provide independent scrutiny of Northern Ireland's public finances. The legislation will put it on a statutory footing.

At Committee Stage, we took evidence from equivalent bodies in other parts of the UK and in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that there was a clear understanding of the additional role of the Fiscal Council and that it would be independent.

The DUP will always question the establishment of more arm's-length bodies, given the cost to the public purse. We are mindful that we have other finance-focused bodies, such as the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The primary difference between them and the Fiscal Council is that they primarily look back at how money has been spent, whereas the Fiscal Council's primary focus is on looking forward at Budgets that have been set and on preparing a Budget assessment report for each financial year and, at least once a year, a fiscal sustainability report. We in the DUP are therefore content that the Fiscal Council plays an important independent scrutiny role, bringing expert scrutiny to future Budgets. That enhances transparency and accountability for taxpayers' reassurance.

The clear protection of the Fiscal Council's independence is an important feature of the legislation. As a party, we have sought throughout the Bill's stages to emphasise the importance of that provision. The Fiscal Council's reports will be of great public and political interest, but the council must be free from political manipulation, which would compromise it. We welcome the Bill's getting to this stage.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance to make a winding-up speech.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, coming after the previous business, a debate on the Fiscal Council Bill, which may be described as a dry matter, may not be considered important, but it certainly is.

First, I add my voice to that of Members who have spoken in support of our international workers, whether they work in healthcare or in other sectors. I add to that my condemnation of the recent violence. I commend all those who work in our health service, improving and saving the lives of our citizens.

On the matter before us now, however, I will respond to some of the comments of Members who have been contributing to the debate since day 1, even, as has been pointed out, before the legislation reached the Chamber. The Fiscal Council has, for a number of years, been an important part of our financial and public services accountability, operating from within my Department but with a very strong independent voice and holding to account me, previous Finance Ministers and, indeed, other public servants. The Bill ensures that the Fiscal Council will be enshrined in law as an independent body and have protections under the legislation.

To me, the crucial element of the Bill is that the independence of the Fiscal Council is enshrined in law. A number of amendments that were tabled at Consideration Stage, in my opinion, impinged upon the independence of the Fiscal Council. Since then, a lot of commentary on social media from Mr Tennyson and others who are not here at the moment questioned whether I and others were stopping the work of the Fiscal Council. I am not one for quoting religious figures or scripture, but it brought to mind a quote from St Augustine that I am paraphrasing: "Lord, make me virtuous — but not just yet". The Opposition and others wanted —

Mr Speaker: I assume, Mr O'Dowd, that that is not a quote from the Bible.

Mr O'Dowd: No, no. It is not a quote from the Bible. I cannot claim to be an expert in scripture or any of those matters. I am paraphrasing a quote from a saint when faced with temptation. The Opposition and others said, "We want to see an independent Fiscal Council, but, here, we do not want it to be independent from us. When we say that we want an independent Fiscal Council, we mean that we want it to be independent from you, you or you, but not from us!".

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will, in a minute, when I finish my scripture. [Laughter.]

I believe that the Fiscal Council has to be independent from the whole lot of us, whether you are a Minister, the leader of the Opposition, a party in the Executive or whoever you may be. The Fiscal Council needs to be independent, and the amendments that were brought forward at Consideration Stage impinged upon the independence of the Fiscal Council. No matter what way you painted it, no matter what you put on social media, and no matter what way you wanted to present the position, that was the case.

I will give way to the leader of the Opposition.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I definitely have even less scriptural knowledge than you have. It is, of course, important — I believe that this is scripture — that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. That was an important part of what we were trying to achieve in the Bill. It is the case that this is legislation. Given the fact that the legislation provides for fiscal sustainability reports and Budget assessment reports, we are, by definition, impinging on the independence of the Fiscal Council, by your logic, because we are instructing it on things that it must do. All the amendments did was ask, "Could you do x, y and z too?". That does not impinge on its independence; it simply sets out in statute what we would like it to do. I appreciate that those amendments were unsuccessful, but I do not think that you can say that you are jeopardising independence simply by shaping the primary legislation.

Mr O'Dowd: I think that you are definitely stretching it. To set up the Fiscal Council or any board, body or structure without any defined role would be utter nonsense. The defined role of the Fiscal Council is to provide the two pieces of work that you have set out. That is its defined role. Anything that it does after that is as a result of the independent nature of the Fiscal Council. I think that it would have been very foolish. We modelled our Fiscal Council on international best practice. That was acknowledged by the current chair of the Fiscal Council, and we learnt from his experience of these matters. The Fiscal Council was set up in such a way that it mirrored other fiscal councils, and that is its core function. You cannot seek independence for the body and then say, "By the way, when I said 'independent', I did not mean independent from me. I want you to be independent from all the rest of them. I do not trust all the rest of them, but here, you can trust me". That was basically the strategy behind the amendments.

I do not wish to concentrate too much on the negatives of the debate. From day 1, there has been a constructive debate about the Fiscal Council. The Chair and the Committee have carried out great work in that regard. I send my thanks to the Committee Chair and the Committee staff. I also thank my departmental staff who have carried out great work on the Bill. I thank the current members of the Fiscal Council, who have been engaged in the debate and discussion about these matters and who have brought the legislation to this point.

Mr Aiken raised concerns and said that, although we are passing the legislation, we have to ensure that the council has access to all the papers that it requires. To date, it has. There has been very good cooperation. As we have just discussed, the legislation states:

to produce Budget assessment and fiscal sustainability reports. Memoranda of understanding (MOUs) were signed between the council, all Departments and the NIO. Those MOUs set out the arrangements for regular exchange of information, including information requests through all parts of the Departments. The MOUs also set out the arrangements for expectations for information-sharing, including arrangements for handling the council's draft reports to support its delivery of its terms of reference. The MOUs will be reviewed once the council is set up in statute.

The Fiscal Council is bound to confidentiality on the information that is provided to it. When providing evidence to the Finance Committee, Sir Robert Chote recorded that the council had received all the information that it had requested. I have no reason to doubt that that will continue to be the case.

I again put on record my thanks to all those involved in bringing the Bill to the point that we are at today. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we make a change at the Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notification from the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The Final Stage debate will conclude this part of the legislative process for the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill, which I introduced to the Assembly on 23 June 2025. Since then, the Bill has been subject to detailed scrutiny and debate, which has been thorough and constructive. I express my sincere thanks to the Chairperson and members of the Committee for Finance for their careful consideration of the Bill. I also extend my thanks to the other Committees that contributed to the scrutiny process and to the officials from various Departments who provided evidence and support to the Finance Committee.

The Bill is important and necessary. As Members are aware, my principal purpose in introducing it was to tidy up a range of routine administrative and financial matters that, taken individually, would not justify stand-alone primary legislation but that, collectively, are necessary to ensure that public finances and administration continue to operate effectively and appropriately.

In response to requests from Ministers and to issues raised during scrutiny, I tabled a number of amendments to the Bill, which I am pleased were agreed at Consideration Stage. As I have said previously, many of the measures in the Bill are long overdue. Indeed, a number of activities that the Bill addresses have been relying on the sole authority of the Budget Act, and this legislation will place those matters on the appropriate statutory footing. I therefore very much welcome the fact that the Bill has reached its Final Stage — a position that I know Members will also welcome.

I do not intend to set out the provisions of the Bill in any great detail, as Members will be familiar with them from earlier stages. I will, however, briefly recap its main elements. The Bill strengthens marine licensing by providing additional fee-charging powers to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; supports the Department for Communities in tackling tenancy fraud by providing further powers to investigate fraud in the social housing sector; and centralises responsibility for setting the basic allowance payable to councillors. The Bill also delivers a number of measures for the Department for the Economy, including updated powers to provide financial assistance where it is in the interests of the economy to do so, to support higher education through loan funding, and up-to-date Tourism NI fee charging and grading functions.

The Bill enables the Department of Education to provide financial support for teacher training and further professional development postgraduate study in educational psychology. For my Department, the Bill provides the statutory power to make loans for the purposes of an investment fund, thereby allowing the responsibility for issuing loans to the investment fund to transfer from the Executive Office. The Bill also increases the limit on advances from the Consolidated Fund. The Department for Infrastructure is provided with a regulation-making power to charge a fee for the issue of travel concession passes. Finally, the Bill provides the Executive Office with the powers to use funding received from Whitehall Departments to support the integration of refugees and those seeking international protection, as well as a new power to provide services to support victims and survivors of abuse. The Bill also allows TEO to fund development opportunities in respect of public arrangements and to deliver on the strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls, and there is a technical amendment relating to the appointment term of the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse.

I do not intend to rehearse the matters further, as they have been fully debated during earlier stages. The Bill has benefited from detailed scrutiny and constructive engagement by Members, and I believe that it is stronger as a result. I ask Members to support the passage of the Bill.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I am pleased to be able to speak to the detailed scrutiny of the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill as it receives its Final Reading. As Members will be aware, it is an unusual but very significant Bill. It is the first Bill of its kind in 12 years and brings together administrative and financial provisions across seven different Departments. Indeed, I believe that, at one stage, it was purely to be a financial provisions Bill, and then it became an administrative and financial provisions Bill, so it is worth paying tribute to officials in the Department of Finance and acknowledging that they probably had to steward through several legal provisions that were not wholly or in any way connected to their Department but involved technical vires being created.

As I said, it brings together administrative and financial provisions from seven different Departments, where ordinarily such provisions would have come forward in separate Bills over time. Throughout the Committee Stage, Members recognised the breadth and technical nature of the Bill and the importance of ensuring that detailed and proportionate scrutiny was undertaken. To support that work, the Committee sought written evidence from stakeholders, undertook public engagement through an online survey, commissioned research and received oral evidence from officials in the Department of Finance, the Department for Infrastructure and the Executive Office. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all those who contributed to and informed the consideration of the Bill. Public engagement was, understandably, limited, given the technical nature of the provisions, but the Committee is satisfied that the legislation received appropriate scrutiny, and it is certainly as appropriate as we were able to make it. We worked closely with other Statutory Committees whose remits were engaged by the provisions of the Bill. I thank those Committees, albeit at times we had to, in the nicest possible way, slightly shove and chivvy them to recognise that the provisions would affect their Departments and that our Committee was perhaps not best placed to apprise them of all the details. Most of them complied with our requests after some gentle encouragement.

Members considered carefully the broad range of provisions in the Bill, including powers related to economic and financial support, fee setting and charging powers, Executive Office function, Education and Communities provisions, and financial governance arrangements. Throughout the process, the Committee sought assurances that powers were appropriately framed, that existing practice was placed on a clearer statutory footing where necessary, and that appropriate safeguards and Assembly oversight remained in place. Members gave particular attention to the proposed power to charge fees for concessionary travel passes, where the Committee engaged closely with the Committee for Infrastructure and welcomed the Minister's decision to bring in amendments strengthening Assembly oversight through the affirmative resolution procedure. That was important to debunk the idea that it was simply a back door to abolishing concessionary fares or increasing fares. However, the fact that it will now be an affirmative resolution procedure will bring transparency to the process.

The Committee also welcomed the Minister's willingness to respond to concerns raised during scrutiny, including his intention not to proceed with clause 20 following engagement with the Finance and Audit Committees. That demonstrated the usefulness of a Committee process when done correctly, even in relation to technical legislation such as this. The Committee concluded that the Bill achieved its principal objectives of improving transparency, placing expenditure and administrative arrangements on a clear statutory basis and ensuring appropriate accountability for the exercise of departmental powers. The Committee, having completed its scrutiny, was content with the provisions, subject to the amendments brought forward by the Minister and the approach taken to clause 20. The Committee views the Bill as important legislation that regularises existing practice, improves transparency and supports proper accountability. Finally, I again thank the departmental officials and others who assisted the Committee in its scrutiny. The Committee supports the Bill completing its passage today.

I will say a few brief words in a party capacity. The Bill is relatively technical, but it is extremely important in how it tidies up the vires of Ministers to make decisions and spend money. The Bill creates significant new legal powers in a range of areas, which will, hopefully, enable Ministers to better carry out their functions. The Bill includes a provision to make it easier for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to take decisions and spend money to end violence against women and girls. We hope that the legislation will make it easier for the Executive to tackle that scourge on our society. It should also improve their vires to spend on refugee integration services, a subject that is extremely pertinent to our discussion of the appalling events of the past week. I hope to see some of the provisions having a real and meaningful impact on the responsiveness of Ministers and their ability to drive forward important agendas now that their vires have been clarified.

I would say this only very rarely: I am almost — almost but not quite — sad not to have Jim Allister in the Chamber today. I will not say whether he is in a better place; that depends on your view of the other place. Like me, he sat on the Finance Committee for a long time, as did you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I can drag the Chair into the debate — and we used to talk a lot about the presence of the "black box", which is the use of the sole authority of the Budget Act for spending where there is no specific statutory provision. The Bill will reduce that even further, which is sensible and helpful, in that it regularises whole areas of spending and gives that spending a legal footing.

On a personal note from the Opposition — I am not challenging the decisions of the Speaker — we had hoped to debate several important amendments. I still do not entirely understand why we were not able to do so, but we had hoped to debate the amendment that would create an independent environmental protection agency. Nevertheless, we are where we are.

The Bill is important, albeit it is sensible and tidying up legislation. The SDLP supports the Bill passing Final Stage, albeit I wish that we had been able to make it even larger and more ambitious.

Miss Dolan: Today, we have reached the Final Stage of what is, as the Chair said, quite a wide-ranging Bill. It involves several Departments, and, while the Finance Committee has led the scrutiny process, there has also been important input from other Committees. There has been an extensive debate on the Bill throughout its various stages over the past year, so I will not go through all aspects of the legislation again.

One of the most rational changes that the Bill makes is to provide the Department of Finance with the power to make loans for the purposes of an investment fund, transferring it from the Executive Office and ensuring that it sits with the Department in which it most naturally fits. I would like to highlight the positive changes made to the Bill through consultation and debate with Members, including the removal of clause 20, which had proposed that the Audit Committee take over responsibility for appointing the external auditor for the Audit Office. However, after listening to feedback, the Finance Minister ensured that the clause would not form part of the legislation.

The amendment to clause 17 provides the Department for Infrastructure with the power to introduce regulations to charge for SmartPass applications, renewals and replacements. I welcome the Infrastructure Minister's support for making any such regulations subject to affirmative resolution rather than the negative resolution procedure. I also welcome her confirmation that any income generated will be only to cover administrative costs to ensure the long-term sustainability and protection of concessionary travel.

The amendment that enables the Department of Education to implement a new bursary scheme to attract more teachers to subjects that are experiencing shortages is a welcome addition that will, hopefully, provide more opportunities for young people to study subjects such as ICT and maths as well as through the medium of Irish.

Events in recent weeks have again shown the importance of providing resources to tackle violence against women and girls and to support asylum seekers and refugees.

Clause 9 provides the Executive Office with the statutory authority to implement the strategic framework for ending violence against women and girls in the coming years. As a society, we need to continue to be proactive in that area and do all that we can to bring an end to the scourge of misogyny and to protect women and girls. The Bill will also enable TEO to coordinate integration and support for asylum seekers and refugees locally, thus permitting TEO to utilise funds that have been provided to it by Whitehall for those purposes rather than having to rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act.

Among measures being delivered for the Department for the Economy will be updated powers to provide financial assistance to support the local economy, which the Audit Office highlighted as something that was missing during the pandemic.

The initial purpose of the Bill was to close legislative gaps in several areas, and I feel that it has been enhanced through engagement with various Committees and during the legislative process. It will improve the ability and effectiveness of a range of Departments.

Ms Forsythe: At this Final Stage, we welcome the Bill, which, as other Members have said, covers a wide range of powers over many critical areas. There are 20 substantive clauses on the operations of seven Departments. It has been 12 years since the Executive have brought forward a Bill of this kind. A lot of work has gone into it, and it is good to be here today. We welcome the reduction of items managed through the black box as a result of the legislation and the significant improvements that it means for financial governance in Northern Ireland.

The DUP's concerns have been outlined by me at every stage of the Bill. I will not recount them all again, but I wish to highlight two issues. The first is our ongoing concern about the high level of public expenditure on asylum and immigration integration support services. No new powers are being brought forward; it is more of a reorganisation of the administration of spending, which is not devolved. Immigration policy remains a Westminster responsibility. It has been good to clarify through our scrutiny that the Bill would not address wider issues such as accommodation providers, as those are operational matters rather than legislative ones. I note that the safeguards on spending are needed. We should not allow ourselves to be found in a situation where the Executive, through TEO, are offsetting the Home Office's failure to address the impacts of immigration on our communities financially and practically.

The other point that I want to raise, which I have raised at every stage of the Bill, is the DUP's concerns about the attempt by the Department for Infrastructure to introduce a clause to bring in charging for travel passes by negative resolution. Travel passes for over-60s in Northern Ireland are important and valued by many who have worked hard and paid their taxes all their life; in fact, they are seen by many as the only thing that they receive from the Government. Potentially changing that was not well received, and I welcome the amendment that requires any such attempt to come to the Assembly Floor for a vote rather than slip through. I welcome the engagement with the Department for Infrastructure, the Infrastructure Committee, through our Finance Committee and the Finance Minister to bring that forward.

The current context must be included in the conversation. We have recently seen the Infrastructure Minister put a freeze on Translink fares again, horrifying the trade unions, which have said that that will have an impact on jobs, as it did in the past. The Minister then went on to say that she will reconsider removing concessions in place of that to make up for the millions of pounds of shortfall from not applying inflationary increases to fares. Concessions were put in place for certain groups of people for a reason, and the more vulnerable in society will be hit. While the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill has been moving alongside that and does not directly cover those concessions, I welcome the fact that the Bill includes that one small protection for the over-60s from the Department for Infrastructure — the clause on travel passes — and I urge the Infrastructure Minister to proceed with caution on decisions in that area.

Overall, the legislation is widespread and does multiple different things. The scrutiny of it has been complicated and interesting. I thank the Minister, all his officials, the Finance Committee and its staff and all other Committees and their staff. I also thank the drafters in the Bill Office. As was mentioned, there were a number of amendments and a number of conversations going on, and the Bill Office did a lot of work on that. I thank everyone, and I am pleased to see the legislation reach this stage today.

Mr O'Dowd: I again thank all Members for their contributions and for their engagement with the Bill across all previous stages. As has been noted, I have listened carefully, as have other Ministers, and with interest to the points raised and, where necessary, have made amendments to the Bill to make it better and more effective legislation that reflects the views of Members and those who were called to give evidence.

As I said in my opening remarks, the legislation is important and necessary. The Bill's main purpose is to tidy up a range of routine administrative and financial matters. That, however, does not, in any way, undermine the importance of those matters, as it ensures that they are properly regulated. I again thank the Chair and the Committee, the Committee team and officials. I also thank my officials in the Department of Finance who brought forward the Bill and officials in other Departments who also had to engage on the Bill. It is another example of how, when the Executive and the Assembly work together, we can introduce important legislation, amend it and reflect on how to best serve this society and improve the lot and the lives of the people whom we all serve.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We now come to the sixth group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 79, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 80 to 86. Any links between amendments in the group will be indicated at the appropriate point.

I call Sian Mulholland to move amendment No 79 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Ms Mulholland: I beg to move amendment No 79:

Ms Mulholland: I begin by recognising the seriousness and importance of what we are debating today. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is about whether our response makes further harm more likely or less likely. That is at the heart of the debate.

When it came to tabling my amendments, I did not do so lightly. As a former youth worker, I tabled them because I genuinely believe that they can make a difference. I have listened to practitioners, victims and those with lived experience. We have tried to table amendments that are serious, workable and victim- and child-centred.

I will address one element of negativity before I begin. For some Members, who are not even here for the beginning of the debate, to say that the amendments were not thought through and that Emma Sheerin, Patsy McGlone, of all people, and I are not fit to legislate is offensive and, frankly, off-the-scale arrogant. To say that the amendments were not thought through is grossly dismissive of the huge effort that was put into them by people who are far more knowledgeable and have far more expertise than I or, for that matter, anyone else in the House. That is the last bit of attention that I will give to that.

I take the opportunity to record my thanks to and admiration for the individuals and organisations that have been at the heart of the campaign for decades, particularly my former party leader and former Minister of Justice David Ford, who initiated and commissioned a review of the youth justice system. Raising the minimum age was suggested then, 15 years ago. This debate has been a long time coming. It is not new.

This is about changing a system that, on the evidence before us, is not working as well as it could. While not required to do so for an amendment to an Executive Bill, I have, over the past year, met as many stakeholders as possible. I continue to have a deeply held belief that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not only the right thing to do but a necessary step, as I now see it, towards a justice system that is more effective and more focused on preventing future harm. I will structure my remarks around the main concerns that were raised during that engagement and from comments made by others, because, for the most part, those concerns are real and genuine, and the debate is too important for there not to be a respectful, evidence-led debate.

The first concern that I will address is the idea that raising the age means that children involved in offending behaviours will face no consequences or, as some who should know better have suggested, that harmful behaviour will somehow become legal. That is simply not what is being proposed. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility does not make harmful behaviour legal; it means that, below the age set by the Assembly, a child cannot be criminally prosecuted or convicted through the criminal justice system. That is not the same as saying that the behaviour is acceptable, ignored or without consequence. There is a profound difference between legalising harmful behaviour and changing how we respond to it, and it is wrong to present the choice as prosecution or nothing.

Some will intervene or potentially get up to speak and offer lists of hypothetical events and ask whether it would be right that those children are not prosecuted. The amendment is not about removing accountability. It is not about denying that serious harm can happen. A child who causes harm must still face consequences, but the amendment asks whether criminal prosecution is the most effective way to reduce harm or whether a different response would prevent future victims.

I want to address the claim that raising MACR means that no investigation or understanding of what happened can take place. That is simply not right. At present, where a child under 10 behaves in a way that would be an offence were they older, police cannot treat that child as having committed an offence. There is no criminal investigation of that child as a suspect because they are below the minimum age of criminal responsibility. That does not mean that there is no response. The incident can be recorded as a non-offence referral; risk can be assessed; parents and carers can be contacted; the matter can be flagged to a youth diversion officer; safeguarding referrals can still be made to social services where needed; and, in serious safeguarding cases, police can act to protect the child from significant harm, so, while the response changes, it does not disappear.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Absolutely.

Mrs Long: Does the Member agree that, crucially, as part of the response for those who offend under the current minimum age of criminal responsibility, referrals by the PSNI and others of the victim to the appropriate services, such as Victim Support, still take place? It is not that somebody is being denied the services that they would otherwise receive as a victim.

Ms Mulholland: Absolutely. Thank you, Minister. I will go on to that in my section on victims, but yes, the Victim Charter still outlines what can be done to support our victims.

There is a difference between saying that a very young child should not be arrested, charged, prosecuted or convicted in the current way and saying that the police, social services or safeguarding partners cannot establish what happened; assess risks; record an incident; support a victim; and put an intervention in place.

The PSNI's evidence to the Justice Committee was clear that the response does not disappear. Chief Superintendent Gary McDonald told the Committee that, if there were any concern about, for example, the child's well-being or safeguarding, the PSNI has good mechanisms in place with social services. It has the ability to conduct joint protocol investigations, and, if there were a safeguarding concern, it would make a referral to social services and ensure that those pathways are met. The route changes. The responsibility does not. The incident can still be reported.

When I am asked whether raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility removes all consequences, my answer is clear: it does not. The amendment is not about removing accountability. However, it changes the route through which responsibility is addressed. It asks whether placing very young children into the criminal justice system is genuinely the best way to reduce harm. That is the test that we should apply: not whether the response sounds tough but whether it makes people and our communities safer. Experts in trauma-informed practice, including Professor Lisa Bunting and her colleagues, are clear on that point: trauma-informed accountability does not ask what is wrong with the child and then stop there. It asks, "What has happened to the child? What harm have they caused? What risk do they pose? What risks are they facing? What response will promote safety, responsibility and recovery? Those are more demanding questions, not easier ones.

Victim Support made an important point to me about restorative justice. It described restorative justice as "extremely powerful" but also warned that it is, too often, misunderstood as the soft option. In reality, when it is safe, victim-led and properly facilitated, restorative justice can be one of the most demanding forms of accountability. It can require a child to face the harm that they have caused and accept that responsibility. Importantly, for victims, restorative practices can offer what a traditional judicial process does not always provide: acknowledgement, explanation, apology, reparation and, most important, reassurance that the behaviour is being addressed.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way and being generous with her time. I have experience of speaking to victims who were subjected to burglary in their home, for example. Some frail and elderly individuals have found that the restorative route was much more important for them, because they had almost mystified the perpetrator into some huge monster that had in some way eaten away at their confidence and sense of security in their home. Being confronted with someone who was about the age of their grandson and had just been reckless in his conduct took away a lot of that fear and helped them to adjust. I have also heard from many people who have engaged in restorative practices offered by, for example, the Probation Board but would prefer to do a stint in prison than have to deal with somebody who holds them to account and makes them account for and acknowledge what they have done wrong. The idea that that is in some way easy justice or less effective for victims is a really flawed analysis.

Ms Mulholland: I agree. That brings me to my section about victims. Any reform that does not take victims seriously will fail. That is why the reform needs to be victim-centred. It is not about choosing children over victims but about recognising that, if our current response does not reduce future harm, it is not serving victims well.

The Victims' Commissioner rightly warned that there has not been any ethically or systematically gathered evidence that would allow anyone to claim that there is a settled victims' position on the minimum age of criminal responsibility, so I do not claim that there is a single victims' view: there is not. Crime and harm will be experienced differently by every victim, and justice will look and feel different to every victim. However, the one common thread that I have heard often when I have met victims and victims' organisations is that they want reassurance that no one will go through what they went through. If MACR is raised, victims must be informed, and they must still be supported. Harm must be recognised, and victims must not be excluded from the process or given the impression that, because there is no prosecution, there is no action. The absence of prosecution must never mean the absence of support for victims. As referenced by the Minister, the Victim Charter makes it clear that, if no one is brought to justice, victims still have entitlements and can access services. Victim Support NI was clear that it provides emotional support, information and practical help even when a victim does not want to progress with the reporting of a crime.

Victims need more than a system that reacts; they need a system that prevents. The best way to protect victims is to prevent further victims. We should be very careful about telling the public that serious harm becomes legal simply because the response is not the criminal prosecution of a child. Not only is that wrong, but it risks frightening families and victims unnecessarily. None of this diminishes victims. They are entitled to expect that the Assembly will take their pain seriously and that the state will do everything that it can to prevent harm from happening again. Victims deserve more than the appearance of accountability; they deserve a system that holds a child accountable in the right way but also reduces the risk of harm to another victim. As I said before, the most effective way to protect victims is to prevent future victims.

There is another myth that I have heard many times: that a 10-year-old knows right from wrong. I understand why people say that. I am a parent of three children, and I know that many parents will look at their children and think about their moral awareness. Knowing that something is wrong is not the same as fully understanding its impact or having the maturity to regulate emotions and actions in the moment. A child can know a rule and still lack the developmental capacity to respond like an adult. Developmental research is clear that the parts of the brain that are responsible for judgement, impulse control, risk assessment and self-regulation are still developing right through adolescence and into early adulthood. A major review commissioned by the Scottish Sentencing Council found that the brain does not fully mature until at least the mid-20s, with systems linked to self-regulation developing much later. Dr Phil Anderson, a consultant in child and adolescent psychiatry, said that young people are "demonstrably and substantially different" from adults and that legislative approaches need:

That is the core issue here. Our laws should be based on what we know about the brain development of children now, not what we wish children would be capable of in moments of crisis. We already recognise that children are different in almost every other area of their life. We do not treat them like adults in any other context, because we understand that children are still developing and maturing.

This is not just about neuroscience in the abstract; it is also about the children who are most likely to come into contact with the justice system. When someone says, "My 10-year-old knows right from wrong", they are thinking about a child who is most likely safe and cared for. However, what about children who have experienced trauma, neglect, domestic or sexual violence, poverty, care instability, exploitation, unmet mental health need or continued disruption in school or family life? Professor Lisa Bunting's work on childhood adversity has been important in shaping the narrative. Her evidence tells us that childhood adversity in Northern Ireland is not marginal to the debate; it is central to it. Almost half of young people aged 11 to 19 in Northern Ireland have experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE), and that exposure is patterned by deprivation. Professor Bunting also highlights the clear dose response relationship between ACEs and later harm. Adults with four or more ACEs, compared with those with none, are eight times more likely to report personal contact with the criminal justice system. I want to be really clear, though, about what that means and does not mean. It does not mean that adversity determines a child's future, nor does it mean that every child who experiences trauma will cause harm. It does not excuse harmful behaviour. It does not erase the victim, and it does not remove the need for accountability. What it shows, however, is that knowing right from wrong is not enough as the legal test for criminal responsibility.

The Youth Justice Agency data makes that point even clearer. In 2024-25, 172 individual children aged 10 to 13 were referred to youth justice services, generating 298 referrals. Most children appeared once, admittedly, but there was a small group that had repeated contact with the system. Care-experienced children accounted for 105 of those 298 referrals or 35·2% of referrals in that age group. That paints a troubling picture. The children who are repeatedly coming to the attention of the youth justice system are not a random group of children. Most are already known to the state and already carry care experience, instability, trauma or unmet need.

There are even starker details when we look at girls and young women in the Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC). This is not about those who are sentenced in custody. JJC figures include children held under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE) on remand and under sentence. That data shows that two thirds of girls in JJC custody — 65·4% — were care-experienced. Those figures should stop us in our tracks, because, if young girls who are entering or are held in custody are so often young women already known to the care system, we have to ask a very uncomfortable question: why are young women with care experience so much more likely to be in custody? We have to ask whether the state is stepping in early enough to support some of our most vulnerable children. What interventions are we missing?

To humanise this, I think about a young woman whom I met in a residential centre in the Western Trust area. She was bright, amazing and articulate — just the sort of person about whom, if you met her today, you would think that her voice needs to be heard in all of this. She had experienced more adversity in her short life than any adult I have known. She told me what was like to be 10 years old and in trouble with the police — the bright lights, the adults talking over her and everyone being really loud. Yes, she had done something wrong, but what happened to her and around her did not prevent harm. It did not help her to understand the harm or change her behaviour. It frightened and traumatised her. It reinforced the trauma at the very age when the system should have been trying to understand what had happened to lead her to that point. Now, at 16, she was able to tell me about how that experience, she believes, contributed to how she kept offending. At 10 years old, it affected how she saw authority, how she pushed back and why she kept offending. That is not an excuse, but it is an explanation that we should be mature enough to hear. If the response to a traumatised 10-year-old makes her more frightened, more distrustful and more alienated from the adults who are supposed to be helping her, we have to ask what that response is protecting. Is it protecting the public, or is it storing up more harm for the future?

When someone says that a 10-year-old knows right from wrong, my answer is this: yes, many do, but a child who has never lived with trauma, violence or instability may not be choosing from the same pool of options as a child who feels unsafe, threatened and traumatised. The protective side of Professor Bunting's evidence is just as important here. She did research on positive childhood experiences, which, admittedly, I had not heard an awful lot about. The research showed how trusted adults, safe relationships, predictable routines and support inside and outside the family unit can make a real, measurable difference. That is not soft evidence; it points to prevention evidence. It tells us that relationships, stability and support are not optional extras but part of how we reduce harm, reduce risk and interrupt the pathway from childhood adversity into later violence, victimisation and justice system contact. The real test is not simply whether a child knows that a rule has been broken but whether the response that we choose will help that child to understand the harm and change their behaviour and whether it will make victims and communities safer.

That leads me on to another misconception, which is that criminalising children earlier will reduce their offending. The evidence does not support that simple claim. The Edinburgh study of youth transitions and crime (ESYTC), which is a major longitudinal study following around 4,300 young people, is one of the most influential studies in modern youth justice. It found that serious offending is linked to wider vulnerabilities and social adversity; that early police contact and formal processing can predict later persistent offending; and that diversion from formal justice reduces escalation. One of its clearest conclusions was this:

It can reinforce the very identity that, we say, we want that child to leave behind. It can damage self-worth, weaken trust in institutions and reduce opportunities. It can also increase contact with children in difficulty and create a cycle in which a child begins to see themselves and be seen by others as an offender first.

The pattern in Northern Ireland's reoffending data is that, for the 2021 cohort, youth reoffending after diversionary disposals was 21·5%. Compare that with 49·5% after supervised community disposals, with almost half of those released from custody reoffending. For the 2022-23 cohort, the one-year youth reoffending rate was 20·8% following diversionary disposals. Among the small number of young people released from custody in the same year, five out of nine reoffended within the first year. Those statistics do not prove that diversion alone causes better outcomes, because children receiving different disposals will have different levels of need, risk, seriousness of offence and previous contact with the system, but they provide strong, Northern Ireland-specific evidence that deeper justice system involvement is closely associated with worse reoffending outcomes.

Northern Ireland should know the value of doing things differently. Our youth conferencing model is internationally recognised as a significant and groundbreaking restorative justice approach. I record my admiration of and gratitude for the work of the Youth Justice Agency. I thank its staff for their time and for sharing with me their expertise and lived experience of working in the field as I prepared amendment No 79. What they do and the outcomes that they achieve are something to be proud of.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes.

Mrs Long: What the Member said about the Youth Justice Agency is interesting, and I agree with her. It is one of the best services available to deal with troubled young people. The work that it does is transformational not just in young people's lives but in those of their families and communities. Does the Member agree that that has been demonstrated on a number of occasions, particularly when legislators came here recently from Chicago to see our youth justice system and were so compelled by what we were doing to keep younger children out of the justice system that they returned to legislate to replicate what we do here? They were so compelled by the argument that the youth justice system was making and by the success that it demonstrated.

Ms Mulholland: Absolutely. I spoke to the Youth Justice Agency just after the delegation from Chicago was here. It just goes to show that our system is internationally recognised. The one thing that I heard from them was that we do so much that we need the law to catch up.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Absolutely, but please take a seat for a second. You missed the start of my speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Mulholland —.

Ms Mulholland: Sorry. I should have said, "Through the Chair". I apologise.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): If anybody gives an admonition in the Chamber, it will be me, not you. Thank you.

Ms Mulholland: Apologies.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We will have decorum.

Ms Mulholland: No problem. On the basis of decorum, I believe that I have carried out my engagement with all Members on this topic with respect, but Mr McGlone, Ms Sheerin and I have been told that we are not fit to legislate because we have tabled amendments. That has to be addressed. Perhaps the Member will apologise to Ms Sheerin, Mr McGlone and me when he intervenes.

Mr Burrows: I look forward to a robust debate.

You made two points. The first was that we have an excellent youth justice system. I agree that it is largely diversionary. We are about to change that by precluding criminal investigation for young people. You said that some 10-year-olds know right from wrong. One of your amendments would mean that, if a 10-year-old committed murder, such as in the case of what happened to James Bulger, the police could not arrest the young person, take anyone to court or even investigate it. How can that be right if children know right from wrong?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I remind Members to express themselves through the Chair.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that this is the second or third occasion on which the Member in question has arrived late to the Chamber, selectively quoted from somebody's speech and made points that have already been covered. It happened in a debate last week, and it has happened again today. Is it in order for Members who have only arrived in the Chamber and have missed the start of someone's speech to then make interventions that misrepresent that speech?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Minister has a point: the convention is that Members follow the rules and procedures of the Assembly. I admonish the Member for North Antrim. That is not the process that we should expect. I wish to continue the debate in the proper manner.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much. I referenced some of the points that were made, and I will reference the final point later in my speech.

I will address the idea that the minimum age of criminal responsibility's being raised is somehow a fringe, soft, lefty ideological proposal — I am looking at the other Member for North Antrim — that is disconnected from public concern, professional evidence and the realities facing our communities. The 10 is Too Young Coalition brings together organisations with deep expertise in children's rights, youth justice, care experience and community support: Children in Northern Ireland, the Children's Law Centre, Include Youth, NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, and Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC). Those organisations are not detached from reality; they work with children in care, children in conflict with the law, families under pressure, victims of systems failure, and communities living with the consequences of harm. Their joint briefing is incredibly clear: Northern Ireland's age of criminal responsibility is unacceptable, the Justice Bill is a critical opportunity to deliver lasting change, and reform is necessary to align Northern Ireland with international children's rights standards. It argues that every day that the age remains unchanged is another day that a child as young as 10 can be criminalised, causing ongoing harm while failing — this is the most important point — to invest in responses that would have a more constructive outcome. That is not the view of just one campaign; a Department of Justice consultation in 2022 showed really strong support for raising the age beyond 10. That involved stakeholders from right across civic society that all, in different ways, pointed away from routine early criminalisation and towards earlier intervention, family support, diversion, restorative practice and, importantly, trauma-informed responses.

The 10 is Too Young Coalition's comparative analysis shows that Northern Ireland has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the entire world, and the lowest in Europe. Of the 51 European countries listed in its briefing, the average MACR is 14. Only 12 have an age of 13 or under, while the age in the majority — over 75% — sits somewhere between 14 and 18. Scotland has already raised its age from eight to 12. The Republic has a general higher age, with exceptions for serious offences. Most comparable jurisdictions have moved far beyond where Northern Ireland remains today.

The youth justice review that was commissioned in 2011 recommended that the age be raised to 12 immediately, with consideration given to raising it to 14 within three years. That was 15 years ago. Members say that reform is difficult. I do not disagree, but difficulty cannot be a reason to leave the law unchanged, year after year. If we move only to 12 now or move to 12 with broad exceptions that leave the door open to criminalise 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds, we are not leading on reform. With the system that we have, we should be. Instead, we are catching up with where we should have been more than a decade ago.

Another argument that I have heard repeatedly, especially after the week that we have just had, is that, because of child criminal exploitation (CCE), we should not raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It is said that paramilitaries, organised crime groups and drug gangs may exploit children should the law change. Of course we should be worried about child criminal exploitation. If Members have not been worried before now, catch up. It is already happening. I do not accept the logic that the answer to the issue of exploited children is to keep them criminalised. That is not good law. It is not good public protection.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Does she agree that, in the past week, it has primarily been adults who have been responsible? Adults have poured the petrol, while kids have been pushed out to light the flames. Those adults include Elon Musk, big tech and other divisive figures. There are also, of course, some adults in the Chamber who often like to stir the pot and stir up anti-migrant sentiment.

Ms Mulholland: When I think about it, if a 12-year-old is burning down a house, I want to know why. I want to know why a 12-year-old is out on the street burning down a house. If a child is 13 years and 364 days old and is doing that, I also want to know why. If adults are grooming, threatening, coercing or using children to commit offences, the answer is not to punish those children more quickly so that adults will not take advantage of them. The answer is to identify exploitation. The answer is to protect the child and disrupt the adults, and I am really pleased to see that the Minister of Justice has been progressing that in other areas of the Bill.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the Member's giving way again. On that issue, one of the challenges that we and the PSNI face is that a child of 11, 12 or 13 may not see themselves as being a victim of grooming, but they may, in fact, be a victim of grooming. That is one of the reasons that, when we look at issues such as modern slavery and child criminal exploitation, our number of referrals to, for example, the national referral mechanism (NRM) is lower for young people from our own community than it is for those who have been trafficked into Northern Ireland from elsewhere, because we are poor at distinguishing between those who are victims of coercion in their activities as young people and young people who are willingly participating in crime off their own back. By removing them from the criminal justice system, they are more likely to be referred to the NRM and get the kind of support that they need.

Ms Mulholland: It is almost as if the Minister and I are synchronised or that we believe some very similar things, because that leads me right on to the recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report on child criminal exploitation. It should be required reading for every single Member of the House who is involved in the debate. When we see a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old involved in disorder, drugs, intimidation or violence, the question should not simply be one of how quickly we can criminalise that child. The questions should be these: who is behind them? Who is benefiting? Who is frightening them? Who is grooming them? Who is sending a child to take risks that an adult cannot take themselves? We have to concede that the CJINI report makes for uncomfortable reading. It is not a pleasant read. It found that there was no mechanism to understand the nature and scale of CCE in Northern Ireland and that specific markers or flags were absent from police and prosecution systems that led to missed opportunities to identify exploitation. It found that children were often treated as suspects rather than as victims, that safeguarding referrals such as the NRM were not always timely and that the child's voice was largely absent from the sample of police records. The report found that the system lacked clear outcome measures to show whether children were being helped, adults disrupted and outcomes improved.

We are told by some that raising MACR will create a new incentive for exploitation. Adults are already exploiting children. The answer is not to keep the burden of adult criminality on the child. Rather, it is to build a system around the child that spots exploitation earlier, safeguards the child, supports victims, disrupts the adults and pursues those adults with far more determination.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. She and I have been through this over the past number of weeks, reciting our arguments. It has been very respectful, and it will remain that way in the Chamber today. The Member says that children are being exploited already. Does she not accept that if we change the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14, a 14-year-old is much more mobile and could be more in the grasp of criminal gangs than a 10-year-old? Does she accept that the change will incentivise the criminal gangs to exploit that cohort of youngsters whom they control much more and incentivise them to carry out further criminal acts because they cannot be prosecuted?

Ms Mulholland: That relies on the notion that if we raise the MACR, we remove accountability and safeguarding. I do not see that as being the case. The Minister has already been clear that there will be a framework in place, if the law is passed this week and, eventually, put on the statute book. That framework will have to be in place, so we will have a chance to intervene earlier. That is how I see it; that is what I believe a framework would do.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Let me continue for a second. I spoke to Scottish Government officials — it is a little bit on your point. We cannot say that Scotland is exactly the same as Northern Ireland, but there are some similarities, particularly around Glasgow and the organised gangs, especially drug gangs. They did not see a notable increase when they changed their minimum age. It was one of the issues that was brought up before they changed their law — they thought that they would see an influx in the 10- to 12-year-old cohort, but they did not. That gave me reassurance, because their experience is fairly relevant, and it challenges the argument that reform automatically creates a free-for-all for gangs or paramilitaries. I give way.

Mr Burrows: The Member talks about a framework for accountability. Does she accept that if her amendment passes, the law would not permit a prosecution, even if the victim of a sexual offence, outside of attempted rape, wants a prosecution? Does she accept that the law would not, in any way, give the victim a voice? Yes or no?

Ms Mulholland: I do not think that that is relevant to the point that I was making, which is around CCE. That is slightly different. We are not saying that this is removing accountability or removing the victim from the centre. If you had been here, you would have heard me talk about reparation and about how restorative practice can be seen as being the soft option when it is not. Restorative practice is sometimes the harder option. Not all victims think the same, because not all victims experience crime in the same way.

I will move on. Child criminal exploitation is not a hypothetical risk created by this amendment. It is the current reality, as evidenced by the CJINI report. If the current system is already failing to identify exploited children consistently, Members should ask themselves this question: is the answer to defend the current law as if it is working, or is it to build a clearer, stronger, child-centred and victim-aware framework that protects children, supports victims and goes after the adults who are doing the exploiting?

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes.

Mr Dickson: I will give the Member a practical example. The staff and principal of a school in my constituency were so concerned about the proximity of drug dealers and adults when young people were going out at lunchtime from the school, that they had to ban all unsupervised exit from the school. Children could not even go to the local sweet shop or somewhere to, perhaps, get an alternative to school meals. The sole reason for that was that adults were preying on those children. They knew their vulnerabilities, knew who their parents were and abused those vulnerabilities to incite them into drug dealing — effectively running county lines.

Ms Mulholland: It is my hope that that is going to be tackled through other pieces of the Minister's Justice Bill. The focus has to be on who is pulling the strings. I was a youth worker in east Belfast in 2012 at the heart of what were called "the flag protests". I will never forget a young person saying to me, "It's the men who tell us to come down here". They pointed to the flat in which the men stood and watched them. The young person went on to say, "They don't get a tag on their ankle, and they don't get a record, but I have". That is at the absolute heart of this. We need to go for those who are pulling the strings and doing the damage.

I want to move on from the evidence on criminalisation and reoffending to the practical question that is at the heart of the debate: when does the system first see these children? When should it have seen them? If we are serious about preventing harm, we cannot focus solely on what happens after a child reaches a police station, courtroom or the Youth Justice Agency. We have to look for it earlier, and we have to intervene. It goes back to my response to the Committee Chair: we have to look earlier. What are the warning signs? Who knew that the child was suffering? We cannot keep calling it early intervention if the first meaningful response comes after a child has entered the justice system. That is crisis response.

Across stakeholder engagement in preparing the amendment, the message was clear: the system is meeting too many children too late. Harmful behaviour is often preceded by trauma, poor attendance, family stress, unmet mental health needs, care experience and exploitation. Those are warning signs, and, if we ignore them, we should not be surprised when problems escalate. The Department of Health described many of the children who are in contact with the justice system as children who are already in need, facing adverse childhood experiences, trauma and deprivation. The Safeguarding Board responded to me frankly, saying that we have to move away from asking, "What did you do?", to also asking, "What happened to you?". That is not a soft question, and it is not about just the child; that is a safety question. Without understanding the drivers of a behaviour, we cannot prevent that behaviour from happening.

Women's Aid made the same point from the perspective of domestic abuse: that it is too late once a child reaches the criminal justice system because children can absorb fear, coercion and violence long before they can articulate it, learning patterns of control or aggression from their environment. Again, that does not excuse harm, but, if we want to stop it being repeated, we have to intervene before those patterns are set. Responsibility for that spans every Department and every part of society, and it does not just mean criminalisation.

The 3ducation evidence tells the same story: schools are already dealing with increasingly complex needs, trauma, absence and safeguarding concerns. The Education Authority (EA) emphasised that it is engaged in a trauma-informed restorative approach, focusing on understanding why a child behaves as they do. As the EA put it, the issue is not the labels but the growing number of children experiencing trauma from an early age. If we label a child without addressing what lies beneath, we solve nothing. If schools are seeing those pressures long before justice involvement, MACR reform is not just a justice issue; it is an education, health, social care, youth work and family support issue.

The Department of Health stated that the issues can be identified much earlier and that it sees school absence as a key indicator. Rather than treating school absence as solely a disciplinary issue, it is so much more helpful to put the focus on why a child is not in school, what safety concerns there may be and what support would help at an individual or family level. The data makes that clear. In 2024-25, overall attendance was 92·1%, but we have to look at where that absence is distributed. It is not distributed evenly; it is significantly higher among children with care experience, pupils who are entitled to free school meals, pupils with special educational needs and Irish Traveller children. Whilst we should never reduce children to statistics, the pattern matters. Disconnection from school is often linked to trauma, poverty, unmet need and marginalisation. Early action really makes a difference. That is why I truly believe that a child's first serious intervention should not be with a police officer at a police station or at a court; it should be in a school, with family or in a health or community setting.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. She raises really valid social issues that we have not yet got to grips with but that we should — we should do a lot better. However, how can she align all the ills and dysfunction in Departments in this regard, and Departments not working together to support children and families, with the criminal age of responsibility? Is it not the case that most of those children will have come into contact with social services before they come to the attention of the law?

Ms Mulholland: The Department of Health has said that most of those children are already known. My point is that, if we criminalise young people at the age of 10, we are missing the opportunity at that point for the issue to be moved out of the justice system and into a health setting. There should be primarily a health response through social services and an education response with regard to what red flags are seen. What early intervention is being put in place for a child at every possible stage and not when it becomes a justice issue? That is my point.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way again. Should it not then be the criminal justice system that gets better? We already treat youngsters and children in our justice system differently from adults. Would it not be better for our criminal justice system to embrace all that the Member has talked about in the past 10 minutes in order to support children in that system?

Ms Mulholland: My point is that so much of that already happens, but, when I speak to those who work in the justice system, they say, "We need the law to catch up. We need the law to give us consistency and clarity on what we do that is outside the scope of the justice system. So much of what we're doing is actually a health response. What I'm doing, as a youth worker in a prison, is actually an education response". My point is that we need to look at this holistically first, and then at how we can take it out of a criminalisation frame of reference and move it into an intervention.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes.

Mrs Long: The Member has raised an important point. It is important to recognise that, yes, the Youth Justice Agency does a lot of good work. However, if you talk to those who deal with vulnerable young people, most agree that the stigma of being in the criminal justice system can lead a child to become more and more involved in criminality and to see themselves as different from other children and as criminals rather than as children in need of support. That is one reason why early diversion is so important. Many such children will, because of safeguarding and other concerns, have been in repeated contact with other agencies. It is the responsibility of those agencies to keep them out of the criminal justice system, and we have an opportunity to make that possible. The system works better in that regard than most people give it credit for. The number of young people under the age of 14 who are in custody is relatively small, which is good. It is possible to do much of the reparative and restorative work without bringing children into the justice system at all, by using the same techniques we have been able to use in the criminal justice sphere on young people who do not end up with a criminal record as a result.

Ms Mulholland: That leads me to a great example that I witnessed. I went to the Western Trust area to visit one of the areas in Derry/Londonderry that, I suggest, is probably best known on the news for some of that activity and particularly for young people being drawn into violence. The family response service supports families at a really early stage. It draws funding from the health service, the community and voluntary sector and others. It supports families really early, and it has a multidisciplinary team. It has youth practitioners, who come from the Department of Education, and social workers. That multidisciplinary team engages with police officers. It is all about building trust through sustained relationship work. The outcomes are so significant. There was a reduction in antisocial behaviour and stronger family engagement. Most importantly, however, I went up and met one of the young people and his mother, and his life had been transformed by this multidisciplinary approach of youth practitioners, social workers, the PSNI and others. He was back in full-time education, whereas, when he first came to the attention of the family support service, he was on reduced hours and, along with 12 of his peers, he had the threat of dissident republicans hanging over his head. The effect of that sustained programme of multidisciplinary approaches was incredible. At the end of the programme, which worked with him and his family, the threat from dissident republican paramilitaries was lifted from all 13 of those young men because of the change in their offending behaviour. The police who were there in the room on the day when I went up and met them all said, "We can't believe the difference. We have never seen anything like this".

That is an example of what happens when you pool the resources of different Departments and approaches. As a youth practitioner — you can take the girl out of youth work. but you cannot take youth work out of the girl — I know how important it is to have someone doing that relationship-building and trust-building work in places where social services are sometimes not accepted and are met with a degree of fear and —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes.

Mr Burrows: Some of those examples demonstrate that the youth justice system is diversionary, proportionate, compassionate and flexible, yet we are about to throw the baby out with the bathwater and create a situation where, if a serious offence, such as petrol bombing a migrant's house, leaving all members of a family with grievous bodily harm injuries, were to be committed, there would be no option for the police to arrest, investigate or prosecute. Do you accept that what you are demonstrating is that the youth justice system, as it stands, is flexible, compassionate and proportionate?

Ms Mulholland: At no point did I say that the Youth Justice Agency is anything other than the things that you said it is. What I am saying is that the law needs to catch up with the diversionary elements that it already engages in.

The other point that I want to raise is about the direction of Together for Families. That is a really important project and policy move that looks at providing the right help at the right time in the right place.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Member for that very powerful example and her recognition of the power of childhood trauma. Does she agree that trauma-informed practice does not excuse harmful behaviour but helps us to understand it and to respond in a way that promotes safety, responsibility and recovery?

Ms Mulholland: Absolutely. That is the point that we are making here. It is not about which approach is seen as tougher; it is about which approach will give us the best outcome when we have the evidence before us. I will go back to some Members who talk about the need for evidence-driven policy.

Mr Carroll: Expert-led.

Ms Mulholland: Yes, expert-led, evidence-driven policy. We have the evidence and the data, yet we are being told that this is pie in the sky. I think that the phrase "beyond stupid" was used.

I want to talk briefly about Together for Families because, for me, it represents a move that is key to all of this, in that it is about being joined up, trauma-informed, practical and local. We have to be honest: Together for Families is still developing, and we do not yet know the answer to every challenge. However, for me, it shows that the Executive already recognise a basic truth: supporting families early is better than waiting for a crisis.

We have to be really clear about the sequence of events. First, the Assembly has to answer this question of principle: is 10 too young to be held criminally responsible? The evidence and the data point to the fact that it is. I believe that it is, and many others around the Chamber believe that it is. Secondly, we need to address implementation. What system do we build to respond to harm, to support victims, to safeguard children and to prevent reoffending? Those are not the same, but they are linked. The need to build such a system should not be used to avoid a decision of principle. The Minister of Justice has set out a responsible approach: legislate, but do not commence the legislation until an appropriate, victim-aware framework is in place. The choice is not between making an immediate change or putting the issue to one side without a plan and leaving it at age 10 indefinitely. That is a false choice.

I want to move on to data. I have just made a point about the evidence. If we are to make good law, we need to understand the scale of the issue, the age of the children involved and how the system currently responds. The figures simply do not support the narrative that large numbers of very young children are running wild without consequence. However, neither do they show that no children are entering the justice system. What they show is something much more nuanced: there is a relatively small cohort of young children, some appearing more than once, in a system that already relies heavily on diversion rather than prosecution, sometimes after a child has already entered the formal process. That points to the reason why we need this law change. Surely the fact that children entering the justice process are given a diversionary intervention at a later date shows that we are already doing the diversionary work, even, at times, after a child has experienced the trauma of being criminalised.

The last recorded data from the PPS, which is for 2024-25, shows that there were 654 prosecutorial decision events involving children aged 10 to 13. When we look at the breakdown, we see that 34 involved 10-year-olds, 75 involved 11-year-olds, 194 involved 12-year-olds and 351 involved 13-year-olds.

There is staggering there that means that we need to intervene earlier, before that behaviour is entrenched. That is what I see when I look at that data.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes.

Mr Kingston: The Member has spoken passionately about a number of active projects in Northern Ireland that are doing rehabilitation and multi-agency intervention with young people. She makes the point that those projects operate within the current system of 10 being the minimum age of criminal responsibility, showing that that is not enforced in some rigid way but that there is a multi-agency, cross-sectoral approach that recognises the fact that young people are different from adults. Our argument is that the compulsion to take part in that exists because the minimum age is 10, so the police do get involved. The police are there, so there is a compulsion to get involved rather than it being seen as some optional programme. The police involvement gives it that seriousness and recognises the fact that, when a crime is committed, there is a victim, rather than it being the case that a young person of 12, 14 or 16 can somehow not be the perpetrator of a crime, so the police cannot be involved.

Ms Mulholland: The point that I have made continually when I have been asked questions similar to that is that, yes, diversionary work is already being engaged in, but it is not consistent. The law has to catch up with what, the experts who do that brilliant diversionary work say, they need. They need that protection and the law to follow what they are already doing.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes.

Mrs Long: A fallacy seems to have grown up that, because something is not a criminal offence, the police will have no role in it. That is not the case. The police can still have a role. For example, if a nine-year-old or an eight-year-old commits what would otherwise be a criminal offence, the police have the right to detain that young person for their own safety before engaging with other services to ensure that that young person is able to get the support that they need. That applies particularly in the case of a vulnerable young person who may be subject to criminal exploitation. It does not necessarily remove the police from the initial phase of investigating what happened and identifying who was responsible, but it means that it will not be investigated as a crime and that the young person will be diverted automatically into other multi-agency areas. Records will still have to be kept. For example, if somebody who is nine years old and has committed an offence that is of concern then commits more than three offences in any rolling 12-month period, that would be brought to the attention of social services, the care system and others.

Provision for children who are younger than the minimum age of criminal responsibility is already in place. It is not about saying that they are not accountable for their actions; it is about that accountability being age-appropriate. We say that those young people can be held accountable and can still be protected as potentially both a perpetrator and a vulnerable person without us having to criminalise them. That is key, because the stigma of criminalisation — deep contact with the justice system — tends to breed further contact with the justice system. We know that from studies that have been done. If we can divert people from the justice system at those younger ages, we are unlikely to have to deal with them again when they are 14 or older. That is an important point, because that is when offending tends to get more serious and to be of greater concern to most people than cases in which young people perhaps get swept up in things when they are much younger.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I just want to continue for a second.

Mr Burrows: OK. That is fine.

Ms Mulholland: I will continue on this point, and then I will come back to the Member.

Taken together — the Minister has just spoken about a lot of this — the evidence tells us three things. First, prosecution is already not the dominant response, and the system already relies heavily on diversion. We need the law to catch up and give consistency and clarity. Secondly, truly serious cases involving this age cohort of young people are very rare, and, when they happen, serious harm is not being denied. Thirdly, intervention still comes too late. If the system frequently steps back from prosecution in favour of diversion and sometimes does so only after a child has entered a court setting, the logical question is whether we are intervening at the right point. If we are serious about preventing harm, reducing reoffending and protecting future victims, the focus must be on earlier and more effective intervention before a child is drawn into the formal justice system.

I will move on to system readiness, some of which has been mentioned already today. I agree with many of the concerns that Members have raised previously. Raising the age cannot mean that there is a gap, and the Committee Chair spoke about that before. It cannot mean a vague promise that someone, somewhere will do something. It cannot mean pushing responsibility on to those who are already stretched — social workers, people in schools, youth workers and people in voluntary organisations — without giving them powers, resources and clarity.

The Safeguarding Board put this challenge to me clearly in our meeting: where do those children go? When I met the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, it warned me that public attitudes are hardening, which is being driven by fear and misunderstanding. I have to highlight the narrative that has been pushed by certain individuals over the past few weeks. The PSNI warned that public confidence will be undermined if people do not understand what replaces criminalisation, so we have to be honest with the public and say that we are making criminal behaviour illegal. To say that there is no response, no consequence, no victim support and no accountability is dangerous and will impact on the public's view of their level of safety, even though we are showing them evidence to the contrary.

The barrier to reform is not the principle but capacity right now, and I acknowledge that. The system already knows what works. It is early intervention, trusted relationships, therapeutic support and family work. The question is whether the Executive are in a position or prefer to fund reform and organise it properly. I believe that there is a will there on the basis of the conversations that I have been privy to between the Department of Justice, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health in particular.

Yes, raising MACR is about legal reform, but it is not only about legal reform. It is credible only if it is accompanied by investment and a reconfiguration of youth work, family support, therapeutic support, education support, victim support and a multi-agency pathway. There are successful models from which we can learn, and I mentioned a number of such models in the Western Trust and the South Eastern Trust, through the work that the Youth Justice Agency is doing there.

I will address some of the misconceptions about the view that nothing is being done. When there is a concern about a child's offending behaviour, a referral can still be made to the children's diversion forum, which is a multi-agency panel that is available region-wide in Northern Ireland. Those panels and the other partnership arrangements are exactly the kinds of structures that will be considered as potential models for working with children under any new age of criminal responsibility, but their purpose has to be clear. It has to include an end-to-end pathway for various types of behaviour, rapid safeguarding assessment, clear police referral routes, specific protocols for children in care and regional equality. There therefore has to be the kind of support that I mentioned that there is in the Western Trust and the South Eastern Trust so that it does not just depend on a postcode. It has to include data and monitoring, because one of the strongest messages from the CJI report was that we cannot approve what we do not see.

If we raise MACR, the Assembly must be able to judge outcomes, reoffending, attendance and victim experience. That is why a five-year review is imperative. It is not a sign of uncertainty about the principle; it is a sign that we are really serious about implementation.

We have looked really seriously and closely at what Scotland has done, because Scotland has already taken that step in part. Scotland is not a perfect comparator for Northern Ireland, with our proposal to move from the age of 10 to 14, but it is highly relevant to public confidence and the "What happens next?" arguments. The lesson from Scotland was not simply to raise the age; it was that reform needs those pathways. It needs a safeguarding system, victim support, public communication and clear data. Northern Ireland must build that pathway and not simply change the age. From answers given by the Minister of Justice, I believe that that is exactly what is intended.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way, and I apologise to her for being a bit late to the Chamber and missing the start of her speech. I agree with her. She mentioned trauma-informed care, therapeutic support and family interventions. Those are all incredibly effective ways of dealing with some children who may end up in our justice system. I agree with the Member that those interventions need to be put in place before the age of 10. They need to be put in place earlier and faster. On the basis of the amendments that we are discussing, I struggle with what will happen to the victims of serious crimes, who may not be classed as victims any more. She mentioned that 305 10-to-12 year-olds had become known to the justice system this year. We are talking about incredibly serious crimes where there are victims of those crimes. What happens if a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old commits a serious crime, and the victims' family wants to see justice and the young person going to a secure facility where they will not harm other people?

Ms Mulholland: I covered at the beginning the conversations that we have had about victims. I reiterate that it does not take away any agency from victims. I have met Victim Support NI, the Victims' Commissioner, victim groups and individual victims, but I have also met young people who are both victims and perpetrators. I have tried to engage as much as I can as a solo MLA on the amendment because I do not have a private Member's Bill. However, the one thing that came through clearly is that no two victims are the same. When you meet one victim, you have met one victim. First, the individual victims can feel very differently about the harm or the offence, even though two people can experience the same situation. Secondly, justice looks really different to each victim. That was stark in my meeting with Victim Support NI. They said that it is rare to find a homogeneous group of victims who all want the same follow-up.

Restorative justice practice will place a perpetrator or a young person who has engaged in offending behaviour in a facilitated, safe space with the person they have harmed, and that is a much more effective intervention to change the cycle of offending behaviour than going through the criminal justice system in a courtroom. The earlier we can have therapeutic interventions with young perpetrators, which are trauma-led and use restorative justice practice, the more we will change the cycles of behaviour before the child is 13 or 14, when the behaviour has become embedded and is part of who they are and what they think of themselves.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. Will she agree that there will always be exceptional cases, where it will be necessary to hold the person in a secure facility to protect the public, even if they are under the current minimum age of criminal responsibility? That is why we have more than one kind of secure facility; some are run by the criminal justice system, and some are run by health and social services. There can be a genuine reason why a person who is under the current minimum age of criminal responsibility may need to be held securely for their own protection and the protection of others. However, they do not need to have a criminal record for that to happen, and that is the crux of the matter. It is not about letting people off without accountability, and it is not about leaving the public without protection.

Ms Mulholland: The Minister has said it much better than I could.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member again for giving way and the Minister of Justice for clarifying that. I am happy to accept the Member's characterisation of non-homogeneous victim groups. I agree with her, and we have seen that in Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles — not dealing with MACR but in other circumstances — where victims have had very different approaches to the perpetrators.

I accept her point, but, equally, will she accept my point that victims of the most heinous crimes that we will discuss today and their families will see restorative justice or other interventions that we have discussed as in no way fit for the crime that that young person has committed? Some are dreadful crimes. I am happy to accept the fact that lots of groups are not homogenous, but will the Member accept that there will be people watching this who will want a different form of justice, such as some level of protective custody for the perpetrator because of the nature of what that person has done to one of their loved ones?

Ms Mulholland: I will be honest with the Member: this is not a black-and-white or easy subject. The Chairperson of the Committee and I have had a discussion about how it is difficult. It is a really emotive issue, particularly when you or someone you love has been harmed. As the mummy of three children, I get that the most primal instinct is to protect those whom you love. However, I go back to the fact that there is no one way to deliver justice that will feel right for every victim or their loved one. We sometimes focus on the offence level, but I would rather focus on the child and how we prevent further victims, because the best thing that we can do to protect victims and assuage their worries is to tell them that this will not happen to someone else. That was the big thing that came through from all the victims' groups that I met. Regardless of whether they believe that criminalisation at a young age is right or wrong, they all said, "All that I want to know is that what happened to me will not happen to anybody else". If the best way to do that and to interrupt the offending cycle is through diversionary projects at an early age, that is where it is most important.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way; I appreciate that you are giving way to a lot of Members.

I appreciate that you have met a lot of groups, but I thought that it would be worthwhile to mention my experience at this point. I met a young man of 16 years of age through Include Youth. He had no faith in any adult because he had had 36 social workers in his 16 years. He was a lovely young fella, but he did not know how to manage his emotions; he found it difficult to do so. He was in a care home. When he was about 11, he got cross and threw a cup at the wall. The automatic reaction was, "Lift him and put him into custody". The reaction was not to deal with him, work with him, find out what was going on and train him on how to work with his emotions but, "Lift him and put him in custody". By the age of 16, his opinion was, "Sure the cops will just come and lift me, and I'll get put inside for a while. If I do time inside, sure what's the difference?". The Jay review that was done by Action for Children highlighted the fact that, if a young person does not have preventative measures and the support that they should have at a younger age and if we immediately go for a judicial approach and put them into custody, that becomes normalised and leads to harm. Action for Children talks strongly about adverse childhood incidents and how much they damage a young person throughout their life. Those children often end up in poverty, homelessness, addiction or so many difficult positions.

That young man's case highlighted to me why we need to look at children and parenting, even if the state has to parent a child, and why we have to put resources into that child before saying, "Lock them up and throw away the key. Put them into custody". That young man felt that he was always chastised by being put in a room, locked away or put in a police car. If they had dealt with him earlier and treated the child, his outcome would have been so much better. The best way for the Government of Northern Ireland to do this is to make sure that we do not give social workers the opportunity to say, "Phone 999 and get the cops to come and lift him". Instead, we should say, "No, actually, it's your job to work with this child now and to try to stop him going into the criminal justice system". That way, we can make sure that the issues that such children face in their lives are dealt with there and then by the right professionals, as opposed to taking the approach of, "Throw away the key".

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Kellie. Those stories go right the way through the system. I spoke to youth workers who work in prisons, and they said that they see young people committing crime specifically to be put back inside and be re-institutionalised because, in the words of one of them, it is the only safe place that they have ever known. It is the only place where they get fed, where they are warm and where they know that they are not normally in really serious —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes.

Mr Frew: Is the Member suggesting that they be deprived of that safe place?

Ms Mulholland: Not at all. I am saying that we need to intervene earlier to work out why they need that safe space. Why is prison safer than their home life and the places where they should be protected? For me, that is the bigger question, but I understand what the Minister — the Member has said.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. The issue is not about depriving people of a safe place but about looking at why, for example, when Professor Ray Jones did his review of children's services, he said that the Youth Justice Agency was doing an excellent job but highlighted the flaws in secure care facilities in Northern Ireland and how they needed to align more closely with the way the youth justice facilities operate. There are ways to assure young people and members of the public that there are secure alternatives to prison. However, what none of us should want is to find that a young person of between 10 and 13 years of age is either becoming reliant on the justice system for support — we know that that happens, where young people see it as a safe space and commit offences in order to go there — or is normalising that in their life so that they think that being arrested, charged and processed through the justice system and ending up in Woodlands or, when they are older, Hydebank is the normal course of life. It should never be normalised for anybody. It should be reserved for cases that are extraordinarily serious and cases where no alternative is available. That is what at least some of the amendments are trying to do. I do not think that any of us wants a child as young as 12 and 13 to be making the calculation that they would be better off in the Juvenile Justice Centre than they would be in a care home, secure care or their family home, because that failing is much wider than the child's; it is a failing of society as a whole.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you.

I will move on to serious harm, as we have been discussing. That is where some of the hardest questions will arise. That is why my amendment includes exceptions for:

I recognise the seriousness of those offences, the public concern and the need for safeguards. Offences that are committed by children aged between 10 and 13 are rarely at the serious end of the spectrum. The PPS has confirmed that, when such cases arise, they are rare and exceptional. In the past six years, only one child of that age has been sentenced to custody in the Juvenile Justice Centre. We cannot build an entire law around the most exceptional cases while ignoring the much larger group of children whose behaviour is linked to trauma, family stress, poor attendance at school and all the things that we have already discussed.

The stakeholder engagement that I have had suggests that we need to distinguish between two groups. For the wider 10-to-13 cohort, behaviour is often early or emerging and is linked to trauma and unmet need. Risk may be escalating. Often, it can be addressed through early intervention and voluntary engagement, as I have already discussed. However, there is that smaller and more complex group: children who are involved in serious violence, harmful sexual behaviour, repeated high-risk behaviour or significant escalation. That cohort requires a serious specialist pathway, not slogans, panic or the emotionalising of their crime. That is where the independent social worker Marcella Leonard's evidence was so important, both when I met her and through reading her work. She has substantial expertise in domestic violence, sexual violence, safeguarding, serious case reviews and harmful sexual behaviours. She emphasised that serious cases, particularly those that involve harmful sexual behaviour, should be addressed through specialist therapeutic and safeguarding pathways. She has dedicated her entire career to this. Her evidence was that appropriate, specialised services already exist but are not accessed early enough, not consistently used and not well integrated into system pathways. That is one of the reasons why I chose that as the subject of my North Antrim Adjournment debate: the system is a postcode lottery at this time. She made the point that serious cases are often predictable and preventable but that early warning signs are frequently missed, and delays in referral increase the risk of escalation. She highlighted a major gap for 10- to 13-year-olds displaying harmful sexual behaviour, interpersonal violence and child-to-parent violence. However, her proposal was not to do nothing, nor was it criminalisation or mandatory detention. She proposed mandatory referral; assessment; therapeutic intervention; expansion of harmful sexual behaviour frameworks, where appropriate; and an invest-to-save approach.

When I was doing my research, I saw that that was exactly the realism that the debate needed. The question is not whether serious harm should be addressed — of course it should — but whether the system can provide a credible, consistent and effective pathway for the small number of high-risk cases and whether we are willing to build that system properly. From the discussions that I have had so far with the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and others I believe that there is a willingness to build that system to better move forward.

The same is true when Members raise the issues of violence against women and girls, school safety, bullying or harmful sexual behaviour. No one denies that those are really serious concerns, but keeping MACR at 10 is not a strategy to end violence against women and girls. Women and girls are protected not by slogans but by early intervention, safeguarding, school safety planning, specialist support, relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in schools and being open to what healthy relationships look like. It is about taking serious action against harmful behaviour before it escalates — nipping it in the bud. If Members want to invoke the issue of violence against women and girls, they should listen to the organisations that work with victims and survivors every day. Women's Aid and Victim Support support raising MACR alongside having robust welfare-based structures. That is not weakness on harm; it is about how we intervene earlier and prevent harm from escalating.

Mr Bradley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Oh, sorry. Yes. Go ahead, Maurice.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much. Your contribution so far has been passionate and sincere. However, I have a different opinion of the work of social services, and it is based on personal experience. A young victim thought it necessary to take her life rather than have the continuous break-up of her family because of a crime that had been committed within the family. I have concerns about social services' dictatorial manner of dealing with things, "You will do. You must do. You should do". I just wanted to flag that.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Maurice. There will be those stories of genuine harm. No one in the Chamber can say that we already have a perfect system. I do not believe that we do. However, we should strive for better, which is why I come back to my evidence. If we are to prevent further victims, we need to look at the best ways in our arsenal to interrupt offending behaviour. You raise legitimate concerns about social services. When we look at the framework and the foundations that we need to put in place, such concerns can absolutely be part of it. We need to look at how we protect and nurture, and, again, that comes back to family support and how we ensure that we are looking at multidisciplinary frameworks that build a safety net around families. That is what I come back to.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that I am nearing the end of my speech. I looked up who has made the longest speech in the Northern Ireland Assembly. There seems to be a trend amongst North Antrim MLAs. [Laughter.] [Interruption.]

It was not the Chairman. It was former Member from North Antrim Daithí McKay at two hours and 10 minutes. I promise that I am not aiming to beat it. [Laughter.]

I think that you came a close second, Chairman.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Absolutely.

Mr Frew: We are just good at our job. [Laughter.]

Ms Mulholland: Or we are full of hot air. We have lots to say.

I turn to the amendments specifically, because each asks us in —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes, the other Member for North Antrim wants to make an intervention.

Mr Burrows: I want to get absolute clarity, because the Justice Minister made the point that the police can still intervene if someone is nine. Yes, under legislation on children, they can detain a child for their welfare, but they cannot interview them under caution, take samples or do a DNA swab to prove what is the victim's DNA and what matches the suspect's DNA. All those things are vital to getting accountability in a case where a young person denies a serious offence. Those things will not be possible under your amendment.

Ms Mulholland: They would be possible —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: — voluntarily. I will give way.

Mrs Long: The Member just answered the question. It is, of course, possible to take a DNA sample. If it is not a criminal offence, it is a voluntary process, but the police can get DNA samples in those cases with permission from parents. It can be done in a voluntary way.

Ms Mulholland: Yes —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: May I please get on to the amendments?

Mr Burrows: One point?

Ms Mulholland: You will get time to ask questions to the Minister during your contribution. If it is OK, I want to get to the amendments and go through them.

My amendment No 79 tries to strike a careful and responsible balance. It raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 because the evidence tells us that 10, 11, 12 or 13 is too young for routine criminal prosecution. It does so because international standards point us to it being at least 14. It does so because child development, neuroscience, trauma evidence, youth justice practice and stakeholder engagement all point us away from early criminalisation and towards earlier, structured, child-centred intervention. I have, however, listened to the concerns that have been raised about cases where there is the most serious harm. That is why my amendment and the joint amendment include exceptions for those most serious of offences. I understand the position of some, particularly those in the children's rights sector and those advocates, who would prefer there to be no exceptions. I understand that, but I have tabled an amendment that moves away from the current law whilst recognising the particular sensitivity and the seriousness of those offences. The need to build the confidence of the public was really clear in the stakeholder evidence that I took on board.

Amendment No 80 builds in a review after five years. I have talked about that before. It is about coming back to the evidence and asking whether victims are being properly supported, whether we can learn from what is happening and what is working well, whether reoffending is being reduced, whether services are responding quickly enough, and whether the age should potentially be raised even further. Good law does not end at the point of receiving Royal Assent. It continues right through the implementation, scrutiny and review stages.

Amendment No 82 is the joint amendment, which I co-signed with Emma Sheerin MLA and Patsy McGlone MLA. It is another attempt to move the Assembly forward. It is a serious, thoughtful and meaningful reform. It says:

It also says that 12- and 13-year olds should only be criminally responsible for the most serious listed offences.

I will also speak, with respect, about amendment No 81 from Gerry Carroll, which would raise the age to 16 without exceptions. I understand why he has tabled that amendment. Many organisations that work directly with children and young people believe that 16 is the right age. They point to the reality that a 14- or 15-year-old is still a child. They point to neuroscience, trauma, care experience, poverty and exploitation. Those are serious points, and I do not dismiss the concerns behind them. Members will know that I have long supported an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It is not a new position for me. Whilst it has not been debated before, it is not a new debate for the Assembly. I do not think that we are quite there yet. The independent youth justice review recommended that MACR be raised immediately to 12 with consideration being given to the further increase to 14 within three years.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. While I disagree with her final conclusion, I agree with pretty much all of what she has said so far. Does she agree that 14 is regarded across the world among human rights and children's rights organisations as being the floor and that we should probably aim for the ceiling and the best approach, which is generally accepted to be 16?

Ms Mulholland: Right now, I would not. I would rather focus on what is in front of me. If, in five years' time, the review comes back, and we see that the change is working really well, perhaps then we can move to 16. Right now, however, that is not for me. I say that with full respect to those who hold that position, including you, Gerry.

Today, I am asking the House to support a change that, I believe, can command broader support, can be implemented responsibly and is the right step for Northern Ireland now. Raising the age to 14 would represent major and long-overdue reform. It would meet the minimum international standard as recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and it would force a proper alternative framework to be developed. My amendment No 80 would allow us to return to the evidence, assess its impact and consider any further changes in a properly informed way.

I believe that raising the age to 14, with limited exceptions, is, for two reasons, the most pragmatic route to take. First, it would allow us to design, test and embed a new framework for responding to concerning behaviour in a way that is manageable, properly monitored and properly resourced. Secondly, it would build confidence in reform. If the public, victims, families, the police, social workers, schools and communities can see that children are still being held accountable, that victims are still supported and that behaviour is being addressed earlier, we create the conditions for trust in a new approach.

I say respectfully that I understand why amendment No 81 was tabled, but, beyond the current law, it is not there now. Hopefully, the Assembly will return to the evidence.

Gerry Carroll’s amendment No 85, which would provide for a review following the joint amendment, reflects an important principle, which is that, whatever route the Assembly chooses, there has to be review. We cannot simply either pass or not pass a reform and then leave it at that, so I support that amendment.

I will now turn to the amendments from Paul Frew and his colleagues tabled. I understand why Mr Frew has raised concerns, because he has done so previously at the Justice Committee and in the media. His concerns are not unreasonable. They point to something quite important, which is that reform cannot be done simply by changing a number in law and hoping for the best. I have been clear with the Member that there has to be a framework, with clear duties and clear referral routes. I agree with all that, but that is where I part company with Mr Frew.

Amendment No 83 would have the effect of removing the caveated increase to 14 and leaving the new minimum age of criminal responsibility at 12. At the moment, I do not believe that that amendment goes far enough. The youth justice review recommended raising the age to 12 immediately, followed by a move to 14. That was in 2011. We are not really leading on reform. Rather, we are just catching up.

Amendment No 84 would remove the specific, tightly drawn exceptions in the cross-party amendment No 82 for children aged 12 and 13 and replace them with a much broader exception for offences that are triable on indictment. I would point out that, in the past year, there were only 15 indictable offences in the most serious category. In practice, I would worry that that would create an inconsistent and too wide a route back into criminalisation. The question that I will always return to is this: what response will make people safer? I therefore cannot support amendments that broaden the route back to criminalisation. They may feel like a safety net, but they risk becoming a trapdoor.

I welcome the fact that Doug Beattie's amendment No 86 recognises that the current age of 10 is too low. That matters, but raising the age only to 12 while still allowing a route back into the criminal justice system for 10- and 11-year-olds does not go far enough.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with everything that she has said about amendment No 86 to date, but I also have concerns about its operability and its creating additional responsibilities for the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), which is challenging for us to do in this legislature, based on our legislative competence. The PSNI has expressed a number of concerns about the practical, legal and infrastructural consequences of amendment No 86 as drafted, as it would be a barrier to operationalising the system that is proposed. The PPS has said that it would create a lack of certainty in the law, be an inappropriate encroachment on the Assembly's lawmaking role and be an overextension of the Director of Public Prosecutions' (DPP) prosecutorial remit. The PPS is also concerned that the amendment is not compatible with article 7 rights in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Departmental Solicitor's Office has agreed with that, and the Attorney General's office has also raised a concern with us. On the basis of that analysis, I am concerned that it may fall outside the Assembly's legislative competence. I understand the idea of 12 becoming some kind of threshold with exceptions, but, as I said, I am worried about the operability of what the Member proposed.

Ms Mulholland: I will jump forward three pages in my speech, given that the Minister has outlined exactly and probably much more succinctly what I was going to say.

There is also an implementation issue with amendment No 86, which was not mentioned. Setting a two-year time frame may sound reassuring, but it does not answer the practical question of what will happen if the framework is not ready within two years. It is too important to commence simply because the date has arrived. If there is no mandatory intervention mechanism, the framework is not in place and there is no clarity on information-sharing, it would create precisely the gap that Members are worried about. That does not mean that implementation should be used as an excuse for delay; it means that we have to set clear statutory requirements — clear milestones. We can and should legislate for reform now and say that 10 is too young. We cannot pretend that a date in the Bill, by itself, will build the infrastructure and the necessary framework that children, victims, families, police and communities need. The responsible route is to accept the principle, pass the reform and require the Executive to build the framework before commencement, otherwise we risk replacing one flawed system with another.

I turn now to the people at the heart of the debate. I think of the child whose school attendance has collapsed; the child in care who has been moved from placement to placement, often with a plastic bag and nothing else; the child who is living with domestic abuse; the child with unmet needs who is struggling in school; the child who is being exploited by older people who they thought were safe or were friends; the child who has caused harm but has also experienced harm. I think about the victims: the person who should never have been hurt; the family that should never have been frightened; the child who deserved protection, support and justice; the teacher who deserved a safe workplace. A good justice system must be able to hold both truths at once. Harm has been caused, and harm matters, but if we are serious about preventing the next victim, we must also ask what response is most likely to change the child's behaviour. That is why amendment No 79 and this work are not about choosing children over victims. It is about recognising that the best way to support future victims is to prevent further harm, yet our current law states that a child of 10 can be held criminally responsible. At 10, a child is still in primary school, so I just cannot accept that. Ten is too young. It is too young, if we are serious about child development, about trauma, about prevention and about victims.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. She is passionate about the subject, and listening to her has been informative. However, even in her amendment, she maintains:

How can she square that circle?

Ms Mulholland: I have talked to others about that. Again, it is about public perception and public confidence. That is why it goes hand in hand with a review. We need to look at assessing, after five years, which of the exceptions have been used. We know that harm caused by young children, including serious harm of the sort that I put into my exceptions, is very rare. Those are the offences that are recognised as causing the most serious harm, so that is why they are in there. It is a public confidence measure and a safeguard in that respect. However, I understand where the question has come from. It is about focusing on the offence level.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I am about to finish, but go ahead.

Mr Burrows: The logical conclusion is that some offences have been chosen not because the young person understands the difference between right and wrong but because of the outrage that the public would have if there were immunity, and that a child —

Ms Mulholland: I —.

Mr Burrows: I have not finished yet.

— understands —

Ms Mulholland: But I have.

Mr Burrows: — right and wrong —

Ms Mulholland: I would like you to sit down. Thank you.

Mr Burrows: — when it comes to a minor offence, but not one —.

Ms Mulholland: Sorry. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, we have been acting with decorum, quite correctly. When a Member makes an intervention, the normal routine is for the Member who gave way to sit and listen, and then respond to it. Equally, a Member who is making an intervention should address their remarks through the Chair.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last week, there were a number of very long interventions, so it was ruled that, if a Member decided that the intervention had continued for long enough and stood up again, the Member making the intervention should desist and sit down. That ruling was made in the Chamber last week. Can we have clarity on that?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I shall check that. I was not aware of that situation. As far as I was aware, the Deputy Speaker or the Speaker sitting in the Chair makes such decisions during debates.

Right. Back to where you were.

Ms Mulholland: Hence why I stood, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was aware of that ruling.

It has nothing to do with outrage; it is about looking at the most serious crimes. It has nothing to do with moral or public outrage. That is a really offensive suggestion.

The amendment has been described as "reckless" and "beyond stupid". I disagree. What is reckless is leaving the law unchanged, despite the evidence and data. What is reckless is confusing prosecution with prevention. What is reckless is knowing that the current system is not delivering the outcome that we want for victims, children or communities but deciding that change is simply too difficult. The amendment has been shaped by evidence, informed by lived experience and challenged by and grounded in what we now know from stakeholders about childhood development, trauma and effective intervention. The real question that we have before us today is not about whether change carries risk; it is about whether doing nothing, and maintaining the status quo, carries a greater risk still.

I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We currently have 15 Members on the list to speak, plus the Minister, plus the winding-up speech. The Business Committee has agreed to have an evening suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting for 30 minutes. We will reconvene at 6.50 pm, in approximately 30 minutes. The debate will continue after the suspension, when the next Member to be called to speak will be Paul Frew.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Minister raised a point of order just before we broke up. I refer her to 'Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House'. Point 10 states very clearly:

That is very clear in the rules and regulations of the Chamber.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be helpful for those of us who were present in the Chamber last week if a reminder to that effect could be circulated, because that was not the ruling from the Chair on that occasion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have just given the ruling. The ruling has just been made. That is what the rules state.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I think that the Speaker's Office has learned lessons from last week, when it gave me a break during my speech to help me to get back on my feet again. You have learned that lesson and not given me that privilege this week, so I start my speech straight after the break. I will speak first as Chairperson of the Justice Committee, and then I will make comments as justice spokesperson for the DUP and as an individual and private MLA.

Whilst provisions to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility were not included in the Bill, it was an issue that multiple respondents raised during Committee Stage. There were differences of opinion on what the MACR should be. The British Association of Social Workers, the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Probation Board, Victim Support, Northern Ireland Alternatives, Community Restorative Justice Ireland and the Youth Assembly all suggested that the age should be raised to 14. Others, including the Children's Law Centre, Children in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, VOYPIC and Include Youth, suggested that it should instead be 16. MACR was also raised during our informal round-table discussions with young people. There was no agreed age, with a range of 13 to 16 suggested by participants, although there was a general view that 10 is too young. The Committee noted the range of views on the issue and the fact that several amendments had been tabled to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility. However, the Committee did not form a view or take a position on the matter.

I will now speak as justice spokesperson for the DUP and as a private MLA. I have heard passion in here today from the proposer of the amendment. I cannot fault Sian one bit for that passion, and I respect that. When you listen to her terminology and the passion in her speech, you can hear that she is really bedded into this world with regard to her passion and her work previous to being a Member of the House. I respect that 100%, but I fear that what we are doing here is changing one aspect — the minimum age of criminal responsibility — before we have anything else in place to ensure that victims are protected and young people do not become exploited.

Sian talked about evidence that she has read and that others have produced. I will simply say this: if the evidence is sound, why have we so many amendments giving different ages for the age of criminal responsibility? I say this respectfully, as she knows I will: the proposer of the amendments has changed her mind on two of her amendments.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will.

Ms Mulholland: I want to correct what the Member said. It is not that I have changed my mind. I have come to a place where, if you can get more political backing on an element of an amendment —.

Mrs Long: It is called "compromise".

Ms Mulholland: It is a compromise, rather than my changing my mind.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for that clarification. With that compromise and, let's face it, a political negotiation, science and evidence have gone out the window. What you have done is that you have tried to get to a common denominator for which you can get the biggest support in the House. We are talking about law and order and the age of criminal responsibility. We are talking about victims. We are talking about children. We are talking about crimes. That is really important, as is the debate. One thing is for sure: whatever happens tonight, it has been useful to have the debate. However, if it ends in changing the law on this issue, I fear for where we will end up and where our young people will end up.

Sian's amendment No 79 proposes to make the age of criminal responsibility 14. However, she caveats that by including:

A cross-party amendment — amendment No 82 — proposes to change the age of criminal responsibility to 12, but it is flipped over, in that no 12- or 13-year-old:

Paragraph 3 mentions murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration. One offence that is missing from her lead amendment — amendment No 79 — is attempted murder. Where is the science or evidence around the lists of very serious crimes that could be committed?

Sian talked about science and brain development. I get that. I know that we all develop at different stages — I do not know what I am going to be when I grow up. In all seriousness, if it is about scientific research and evidence around brain development, how could anybody aged 10 be found guilty of murder, manslaughter, rape, assault by penetration or attempted murder? In many ways, if you put so much store on the developmental attitudes of young people, it defeats your own argument, and I really worry about that.

I also worry that we are complicating what is already a very complicated system. We have a criminal justice system that includes the Youth Justice Agency, youth courts, criminal justice and so on — we know that going into a court is scary for an adult; I have been there — but we complicate it even further when we add caveats for serious crimes for which a 10-year-old, or a 12- or 13-year-old, can be convicted, namely murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or assault by penetration. That will have a grave impact on all the law enforcement agencies, including the PSNI.

Let us look at some issues that we have been dealing with over recent years and at what young people have been doing. I have no doubt that, when it comes to young people's behaviour, violence is a big thing; violence against other children is a big thing. As they get older and come into puberty, sexual activity and, I am afraid, sexual crime come into play.

If a child cannot be found guilty of a sexual crime, does that mean that it is sexual activity because it cannot be a crime if the person perpetrating it cannot commit the crime, cannot be the perpetrator of crime or cannot be guilty of crime? Are we saying that sexual crime for a 12- or 13-year-old, or even, in the first amendment, for a 10- or 11-year-old, is not crime? That is what we are talking about. So what does it become, and how do we get outcomes and justice in that scenario? How do we get a decent outcome for the victim and a decent outcome for the perpetrator? Justice is not just about throwing somebody in prison or punishing people. As a libertarian, I believe that justice works both ways: you get rewarded for doing something good but punished for doing something bad. I really worry, therefore, about the list and the road on which we are travelling.

At the minute, the status quo is 10 years old. We all know that. The criminal justice system, the police, the PPS and the courts know that, but how do we go about doing lists? What do we leave off and what do we include? What are the lists for? What are they trying to achieve? Is it about recognising serious harm? Sian alluded to it being about public confidence, and I understand that, because she has been honest, and I thank her for that. If it is about public confidence, however, we have a big issue with everything to do with the criminal justice system, because a lot of people do not have confidence in the justice system, and that is regrettable. Going down this road will add to that lack of confidence.

Is it about recognising serious harm? If it is, what about the threat to kill? Is it about managing risk? How is listing only five managing risk for the victim of an activity or for the perpetrator because we are not yet sure whether it is a crime? Will it address public concerns in exceptional cases? The proposer of the amendments and the mover of the debate has said that the numbers are limited. They are minute in the wider scheme of things, so why are we going down the road of lists? That is a serious problem because there is a fundamental issue in the courts system, which has been highlighted to me.

First, let me address some of the serious issues that should be on that list. Conspiring or soliciting to commit murder is not on the list. Threats to kill is not on the list. Shooting or attempting to shoot or wounding with intent to commit GBH are not on the list. Inflicting bodily injury with or without a weapon is not on the list, nor is attempting to choke in order to commit an indictable offence. We have been through that before in the Chamber regarding non-fatal strangulation. What message are we now going to send to young people in saying that, if you do that activity at 12, 13 or 14 years old, you are not committing an offence?

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Burrows: The Member makes a good point that there are offences that are incomplete offences short of murder. Attempted murder is included, but the Member is quite right to say that conspiracy to murder is not. There is a recent example — I will be brief — of a child being prosecuted in England for aiding and abetting the rape of two schoolchildren. Under amendment No 82, the child could not be prosecuted for that but could be prosecuted for attempted rape. That distinction is simply irrational.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. That is why I am really worried about starting a list system with a list of only five offences, as serious as they are. A child under the age of 16 would not be able to be found guilty of an offence of cruelty to someone under the age of 16. Neither burglary nor aggravated burglary is on the list. Destroying or damaging property is not on the list. What have we lived through in the past week?

When it comes to indecent photographs of children, we have gone through the matters of upskirting and downblousing in the House. The Minister pushed that stuff through, and very welcome it was. We supported her with all that, but what we are now saying to a child is this: if you commit that activity, you cannot be found guilty of an offence.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. The rationale of the Members who tabled the amendment is that prevention is always better than cure and that we would rather not see children be placed in such a position. The party of the Member opposite blocked a measure to enable girls to wear trousers in school. If they were allowed to do so, they would not be victims of upskirting. Is that not something practical and real that would lead to less damage to young women in class?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention. If it is about prevention, why are we not doing it better already? Why have you turned this around so that it is the victim of the activity who needs to do something in order to stop it? That is wrong-headed and not where we should be. Saying, "Worried about upskirting? Just wear trousers" is a bad place in which to be, and we should not go there. We should afford our schoolchildren the safety to wear a skirt if they feel like it, without their fearing being upskirted in any way, shape or fashion. What we are saying, however, is that, under the amendment, a 13- or 14-year-old who engages in that activity will not be found guilty of an offence. That would do violence to all the work that we have been doing over the past number of years.

That raises a fundamental issue with our court system. I do not want to see any young person have to go to court for any crime that they have committed, but one of the facets of justice is, and has to be, accountability. Professor Kevin Brown wrote to me and has published a platform piece in 'Irish Legal News'. I state categorically that Professor Brown thinks that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be raised. He is, however, really worried about the list system and the complication that it would bring, especially for sexual offences. I will read an extract from his platform piece, because I agree exactly with what he wrote:

That is really important. We have all got to the point of thinking that something should change, but no Member who is here tonight has told me what needs to be put in place. We have talked about a framework, which the Minister mentioned. The Member who proposed the amendment talked about a framework being in place, but no one has yet given us the detail of what it would look like and what outcomes it would achieve.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. He is correct to say that we have not got that framework. That is why we have said that we would want the provision to be commenced not on a given date but at the point at which the framework is fully in place. That would give Members the assurance that they will see the framework and know how it will operate before the provision is commenced by the Department. We would not want to see a commencement date set that could lead to any gap in provision or protection. That would be the worst of all outcomes and is not what any of us wants to see.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention. None of that is in the text of any of the amendments, however.

Mrs Long: Nor would it be.

Mr Frew: We would need assurance, and the Minister would need to give assurance to everyone out there —.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I do not know whether he has read the Ray Jones review, in which he touches on a lot of the issues associated with juvenile justice. Almost 50% of the young people who have been in the juvenile justice centre (JJC) or who have committed different criminal offences that have not resulted in being held in the JJC are kids in care. In the review, Professor Jones stipulated what the framework could look like and said that it should involve not just an arm's-length body but the Justice and Health Departments working a lot together. The juvenile justice centre is already doing a lot of work well, but that could be done in the health sector and by social services. It does not need to go through that process.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention. Why is that not being done already? Why is our healthcare system not aligned with that? Why are social services not aligned with that? The Member is quite right about kids in care. However, what is being proposed here will put more children into the social services network. We all sit in here and have lovely debates and say robust things to one another, but there is a dark, evil world out there. Our children are really vulnerable. Some of them experience things on a daily basis that we can only imagine and cannot yet comprehend. Children in care are more susceptible and more vulnerable than anyone else.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: That is a massive issue. By taking out the criminal justice element, I fear that we will be putting that care system in place for more children at different ages.

I will give way to the Member.

Miss McAllister: I highlight to the Member the fact that, in my constituency, one in 20 children is in the care of social services. Being under the care of social services does not necessarily mean that they have been removed from their parents. A lot of the children whom you referenced are already under the radar of social services and have committed crimes. It is not as though we would be handing over the work to social services. Even if the amendment is not passed today or tomorrow, social services should already be involved, and if they are not, that is something that the Department of Health should answer for, regardless of what happens here today.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for that. I agree with her: we all need to do it better. Every Department needs to do it better, because the world is getting worse out there. The digital age is making it worse, but, physically, it is getting worse for our children. I have not been reassured yet that anything that we have in place through social services can make a profound difference to what we are trying to achieve here. I believe that you would create a chasm by moving the age of criminal responsibility.

The Youth Justice Agency does a tremendous job, but it cannot do it all. What we need is a system involving Education, Health, social services, Communities and everything else that wraps around the criminal justice system and allows us to better inform the criminal justice system in order to better protect not just victims but child perpetrators. I think that we can all agree on that. Saying that we can simply change the age of criminal responsibility here tonight without having any of that substance in place is just frilly words in a very dark world.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: This is not about wrapping all the services around the justice system. It is about wrapping services around the most vulnerable children and families. There are fantastic examples of such work. I have personally been engaged in work with a wrap-around service that involves the PSNI, the Probation Board and community or social services to intervene early to prevent vulnerable kids who are not attending school from going into the criminal justice system. If you go and look, you will find excellent models in the community under the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme. Go and speak to the people in communities who are working on that.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her contribution. She is quite right. I have been involved in keeping children out of the criminal justice system and working with the police to ensure that they do not get a criminal record. I have been through restorative justice programmes that have resulted in a decent outcome for the perpetrator and the victim that the victim was satisfied with. That is all work that takes place in our criminal justice system currently. As has been mentioned, we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I really worry about the step that the Assembly could take tonight, which could jeopardise victims and young people. I ask Members to be very careful about how they proceed.

I was going to talk about Professor Kevin Brown. He thinks that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should rise but says that he is concerned about the listed crimes, and here is why:

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will finish the quote, then I will give way. Professor Brown continues:

By raising the age of criminal responsibility without having in place a suitable and robust framework that brings accountability and satisfaction for victims and child perpetrators, we are in danger of distorting the justice process for the young perpetrator. Not only that: we are in danger of distorting the public protection arrangements Northern Ireland (PPANI). That is how serious it is. I will take an intervention from anyone who wants to address the PPANI issue. How will those offences be recorded? What will they be recorded as? Those are very serious matters.

I will give way to Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. He referred to Professor Brown's article. It is worth debating that. Professor Brown refers to the potential for binary cases and the exceptions in amendment No 82, but is it not the case that Professor Brown is fundamentally pointing out that the age of criminal responsibility should be increased? His point is not that it should not be increased. His point is about being careful about potential consequences, and that is why an amendment has been tabled with a review mechanism.

Mr Frew: The Member will have heard me state that Professor Kevin Brown believes that the age should be raised. I do not dispute that, but Professor Brown raises serious questions: someone who is on that side of the argument raises real and valid concerns about the list of offences, and we must take that into consideration. If a person is in court and processed for one of those listed offences, will they be able to plead to a lesser offence? What will happen if they do? The first question is whether they can do it: can they plead to a lesser offence? The justice process basically entitles them to do so. If they do plead to a lesser offence, will they walk from court?

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way again; he has been very generous with his time. I understand his concerns about what might almost be called the arbitrary nature of the listed offences. All of this is a balancing act, and we chose offences, as the exceptions to the rule, that held the maximum penalty because they are the most extreme offences. We are coming at it from the position that these are children, acknowledging that most children do not understand the fullness of what they have done or been accused of. We are trying to provide intervention as opposed to punishment. These are the most extreme cases. We are not trying to legislate for everybody on the basis of some extremities. These are very rare cases. That is the rationale behind the particular offences that carry the maximum penalty available, acknowledging the severity of those particular offences.

Mr Frew: I am grateful to the Member for her intervention, but she is basically admitting that she is scared of a public uproar. If someone below the age of criminal responsibility that you are going to set commits the crime of murder —.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will finish my point first, and then I will let you in.

You are basically saying that you are scared of the public uproar. Be honest with the people in here and the people outside. Sian said that it was about public confidence. You are basically saying that those are the most serious offences. If it is about the brain development of a child, how can they be guilty of murder but not guilty of threats to kill?

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. I would like to correct the record, because I did not make that assertion, and the Member knows that full well. Someone said earlier — I think that it was Sian — that the most fitting tribute that we can make to any victim of crime is to ensure that that crime is not inflicted on anyone else. It is not because of the risk of public uproar; it is in recognition of the fact that some offences are so dangerous that we would not like to risk someone else falling victim to the same crime. That is the rationale behind it, not fear of public uproar. That is an awful thing for the Member to have said.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention, but how is raising the age of criminal responsibility going to stop that victim from being victimised again? There is an issue here. There are many children out there of all different ages, understandings, mental growth, development and everything else, but there are a number of children who will reoffend again and again if they know that there will be no criminal consequence to their activity. I will give way to Gerry.

Mr Carroll: Going by the Member's logic, does that mean that there is a mass of nine-year-olds committing crimes left, right and centre?

Mr Frew: We will get into that later.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way. We will get into that later, Gerry.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. The reason why we brought this proposed legislative change is to prevent crime. The data tells us that the younger a person enters the criminal justice system and the younger they are systemised, the more likely they are to continue in a cycle of crime. The whole point of this is prevention rather than punishment. As with my earlier point, if young people received appropriate relationships and sexuality education in school and were properly taught about the appropriateness of relationships, we would not have the threat or the risk of downblousing or upskirting. That is something that we have as a result of young children not being properly taught about appropriate relationships. It is always better to teach our young people rather than punish them.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member again for her intervention. The Youth Justice Agency told us in the Committee that there is a fear in them that, if it gets children at the age of 10, it can work with them and make a difference. If it gets that same child at 13 or 14 years of age, it fears that characters have already been maintained and practices have already been deployed and entrenched, and it could not overturn the habitual behaviours of that child that it could have when they were 10 years of age. These are massive issues that we are grappling with here, and we need to make sure that the step that we are taking is the right one. I see nothing filling the vacuum being left here when we increase the age of criminal responsibility. We have heard —.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Ms Nicholl: The Chair of the Committee is always very gallant in giving way. It strikes me that the approaches are different. Those who support the amendment are focusing on the child's perspective, and you are coming more from the victim's perspective. The Member can clarify that. What is his analysis of Victim Support supporting the rise of MACR to 14 and the adoption of a welfare-based approach, as opposed to forcing young people through the criminal justice system, as the best way to protect victims?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention. Should our criminal justice system not be the welfare system as well? Why does it have to be one or the other?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: I can very clearly say that it should not. The problem in our society is that, too often, the justice system is the provider of last resort in all circumstances. Where do we put people with serious mental health problems? We put them in prison. Where do we put people with undiagnosed neurodiversity, people with learning difficulties and people with speech, language and communication difficulties? If we do not know where to put them, we put them into the justice system, and that is a problem. Not everyone who enters the criminal justice system has necessarily found the right place. There are other therapeutic interventions. The Member was on the same side of the argument as we were last week when we said that deprivation and poverty should not be criminal offences. However, deprivation and poverty are the underlying causes of the behavioural issues that bring many of the young people whom we are talking about to the attention of the Police Service. Frankly, we should not wait until Justice comes along; we need to get the Department for Communities, the Department of Education, the Department for the Economy, the Executive Office and all the other bodies, including the health service in particular, to step up and intervene before there is nowhere for those children to go but to prison.

Mr Frew: I completely agree with the Minister, and that is why we do not send children to prison. She talks about the law needing to catch up, but what we really want to see is this: all the systems that the Minister has just talked about wrapping around those children before we even touch the age of criminal responsibility. If those areas were covered, if we treated people fairly, victims and perpetrators, especially young perpetrators, and gave them justice and accountability, we would be in a far better place to look at the age of criminal responsibility and make an informed choice, but we are not there yet. We are still failing victims and child perpetrators on a range of issues, one of which is that it is a big, dark world out there, with evil perpetrators exploiting children and victims.

We have heard rosy, fluffy words tonight. We have heard that there should be a framework in place to discourage harmful behaviour — that means crime, folks — and that there will be end-to-end pathways and specific protocols. Well, I ain't seen anything yet.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes. I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: The Member has also brought amendments to the House that did not have every protocol covered, with every i dotted and every t crossed, yet we agreed that we would work on what those would look like going forward. Legislation is not the place to set down every scintilla of detail; legislation is the place where you set the boundaries within which policy will then be formed. Tonight, we are being asked to agree the age limit and the exceptions. Once we have the agreement, we will then design a system to meet that. To be completely frank, there was no point in my Department spending its limited time and resources on defining and designing a system for a set of amendments that may not pass. We do not have those resources at our disposal. It is that simple, and the Chair is well aware of the constraints faced by the Department. The Department is trying to support the increase in the age of criminal responsibility but hold off on implementation until the point at which all the systems are in place. It could not be done ahead of tonight, and, even if it could have been done, it would not have been in the primary legislation.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention. All the good stuff that the Minister has talked about, albeit scant in detail and quite fluffy at this time, is what her Department and other Departments should be doing anyway to make our justice system better.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. I was going to make a point on something that the Minister touched on, but I will point out that some of those protocols to keep young people out of the criminal justice system already exist between the police and social services.

While you keep talking about frameworks and protocols, it will not be about just one; it will be about ensuring that you can work with all the agencies. I will touch on some of them when I make my speech. Some of them already exist and are successful in keeping children out of the criminal justice system.

Mr Frew: The Member makes a really good point. That is why we need to do more of it and more extensively in order to save more victims and get more child perpetrators away from reoffending, crime and organised crime gangs.

We do justice differently for young people and children than we do for adults, and that has been the case for a long time. That is why we do not send children to prison. That is why we have youth courts and restorative justice for children. That is why we have diversionary tactics and programmes for children. We already do that, and we need to make sure that, at the age of 10, 11, 12 and 13, children can avail themselves of those programmes. That is important. If we pass this today, those children will not be able to avail themselves of a system that is already tried and tested and works to some effect. I worry that we have done this about-face. We should have the frameworks in place with end-to-end pathways, whatever that means, and with specific protocols, whatever that means, to do away with harmful behaviour, whatever that means, before we tackle the age of criminal responsibility. We have got it the wrong way round, and that is why it is so important to take stock, take a beat and consider what we are going to do tonight.

It is really important that people address the two issues that I have raised. How do you plead to a lesser charge if you cannot be convicted of that lesser charge in a court? That is fundamental to our court system. No one has been able to make an intervention tonight that solves that issue. Does a child have the right to plead to a lesser charge that is not listed in the amendments, or does that child walk from court? There is also the issue of the PPANI arrangements. When a child aged 12, 13 or 14 commits a sexual activity — we are not sure yet whether it is a crime or an offence —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way in a minute, Minister.

— will that be recorded and will they fit into the PPANI arrangements? That is a fundamental question that we need to assure ourselves of before we walk into a Lobby.

I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: First, we dealt with the issue of the recording of incidents. That would still happen because a victim will still have been created. We acknowledged that earlier. That will not be recorded as a crime, but it will still be recorded as an incident. The management of the risks posed by children and young persons who are under the age of 18 and fall under the definition of a relevant sexual or violent offender is not normally required to be multi-agency management, because they are normally under child protection from health and social care trusts. That is the normal way that an under-18 would be dealt with, so this is perhaps slightly different in that we are talking about a different age group. Exceptionally, however, if the health and social care trust, the Youth Justice Agency, the Prison Service or the Probation Board consider that that multi-agency risk assessment is required and that additional management is necessary, that can be provided in the case of a young person who, if they were an adult, would go into PPANI automatically but, as a young person, would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention, because she has been informative about the processes. Those are the questions that I have been grappling with that no one else seems to want to grapple with. Those questions are really important.

Nuala, do you want to come in?

Miss McAllister: On your first point about pleading to a lesser charge, you cannot plead to a lesser charge if the offence does not exist. Therefore, it is the Public Prosecution Service that is pushing the charges against that individual — the charges listed under the amendments — so that young person cannot plead to a lesser charge because it does not exist. I do not understand what you do not understand. It is the charges that are there that the Public Prosecution Service is putting forward, and it is those charges that will stand. There is no option to plead to a lesser charge if the offence does not exist.

Mr Frew: If I am right about what the Member says, she is content that a child in court be tried for the offence of rape when they and their solicitor team or barrister team believe that they should be tried on a lesser charge. That child will have no choice but to be tried for rape. If that is what the Member is saying, that is OK. It is fine. That is where we are going here, however.

I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: To be absolutely clear, as things stand, the decision on the charges that are brought against an individual is made by the PPS, not by the barrister or defence counsel representing the potential defendant. The charge to which they would plead would therefore be the one that the PPS has brought. I accept the point that the Member makes that if, for example, the PPS is fearful that a charge of rape would not be made out in court and would not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it might offer a reduced charge. He is right that, in that case, it would not happen. The point, however, that he is making about it having anything to do with a choice on behalf of the young person or their defence team is simply incorrect. The decision is one for the PPS. If it believes that there is sufficient evidence, it would be able to prosecute such cases as it does currently.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention. There is a court process to be had, however. When the charge sheet first goes to court, the DPP will say to that person, whoever they may be — it does not even need to be a child — that the defence will be such-and-such, and, many times, at the other end of the court process, they are found guilty of another, lesser offence. There is an issue here that would need to be resolved before we could, in all honesty, vote for something like that tonight.

I will address the issue of the coercion of young people —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Burrows: There is a real danger that the young person could be penalised by being over-charged. Many cases are borderline between assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm or between grievous bodily harm and attempted murder. The PPS may run with the higher charge, so there is no accountability.

An issue that is linked to that is that the alternative verdict to a murder charge is often manslaughter. How would that work in this case? Would the verdict of manslaughter not be available to the young person? That is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. Manslaughter is on the list. He illustrates a valid point, however. If someone is on trial for murder but pleads guilty to manslaughter — it is on the list — you can see how that trickles down and how a system that lists exclusive offences could be really detrimental to that young person in court. There are real issues that have not yet been addressed or even thought out, unfortunately.

I will address the issue of the coercion of young people by criminal gangs. The issue that needs to be discussed is that it is not good enough to say that young people are already being coerced by criminal gangs. Of course they are, but there is a better chance of a 10-year-old being indoors at night than a 14-year-old. Young people who are 12, 13 and 14 years old are much more mobile and harder to keep in the house. They will be out and about and can go further distances than a 10-year-old can. There is a real difference. The four years between the ages of 10 and 14 years old is a massive period in a child's life, so it is really important that we get this right.

What I mean when I talk about mobility is that there is a greater risk of a vulnerable 13-year-old or 14-year-old being in the grasp of a criminal gang than there is of most 10-year-olds being in the same situation. That is why we are protecting people by seeking to keep the criminal age of responsibility at 10.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. I am absolutely astounded. He is making the argument for us. If children are more likely to be coerced at 12, 13 and 14 than they are at 10, they need to be protected. Genuinely, how is it the answer to criminalise them?

Mr Frew: You are creating a cliff edge at an age of greater mobility. That means that, if you are a criminal gang lord — I do not know what you call them nowadays — the head honcho of a criminal gang or even a terrorist outfit, you will look at your range of young people whom you can exploit, and you will group together all your 12-year-olds and all your 13-year-olds, and you will have a greater number of them than 10-year-olds. You will send those people out as drug mules, to engage in drug dealing and to move arms and explosives from house to house. Those things, if the young people are captured by the police, will not be crimes.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for being so generous with his time, but this is an important point. Does the Member believe for a second that organised crime gangs and the criminals who exploit young people care about the consequences for the young people from the criminal justice system? Does he also acknowledge that the evidence suggests that not criminalising young people reduces reoffending? Social services and others can intervene and put those young people who are at risk into secure care and make other interventions.

Mr Frew: First of all, on secure care, there is not much secure about it, I am afraid. There are massive issues with our care system. That is not a slight on anyone who works in that difficult field. We know what that means for the people who are employed there. However, we also know what it means for the children who are in care. They are the most exploited. They disappear for days on end. The care staff do not know where they are. They do not know where they have been. They do not know what they have been doing, and there is little that they can do about it. That is why this matter is so important. The criminal gangs do not care about those young people, but you are incentivising those crime gangs to use children in that age range to fund and fuel their criminal activities. You are creating an incentive to use that age group. That is what you are doing.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will.

Ms Ferguson: You are focused on the crime of organised gangs as if it is not a crime. It is a crime against the child.

Mr Frew: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: Absolutely. We are here to protect the child.

Mr Frew: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: Stop focusing on the crimes of organised criminal gangs and how they coerce young people. Stay focused on the crime against the child — a child.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for that. I will give way in a wee minute, Minister.

I will address that. Changing the age of criminal responsibility will not do one thing for the child caught up in those drug gangs. It will not do one thing for the children caught up in terrorist outfits. It will not do one thing for those, whereas, if they can be captured, if they can be found committing an offence, there is a chance that we can rescue those children, stop the reoffending and get them away from the grip of the criminal gangs. We will not send those young people to prison. We will use diversionary tactics; we will use restorative justice; and we will ensure that those people are protected.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way, and then I will give way to the Minister.

Ms Ferguson: You want to criminalise children. You are giving children a life sentence. That is what you are asking for: giving vulnerable young children a life sentence by criminalising them and stigmatising them for the rest of their life.

Mr Frew: We are not going to give children life sentences. However, your amendment will convict children of murder; attempted murder; manslaughter; rape; or assault by penetration. In that regard, there is no difference between your position and mine. You will still convict young people — children — of those offences, so how do you explain that? How does the Member opposite explain why she is justifying finding a 12- or 13-year-old guilty of murder, when they might have been coerced; attempted murder, when they might have been coerced; manslaughter, when they might have been coerced; rape, when they might have been coerced; and assault by penetration, when they might have been coerced? How does the Member opposite square that circle? [Interruption.]

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I can give way to the Members opposite if they wish, but I also promised to give way to the Minister, and I will come to her now.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. He has been generous with his time. I do not doubt that what the Member says and believes is sincere: that the criminal justice system is often the only intervention that young people get. I hope that he agrees that it should not be. If young people are starting to go off the rails, we want to intervene more quickly. However, here is a question: do you accept that, if somebody lures a child into criminal activity, child criminal exploitation or other things, that child's fear of being prosecuted for the actions they have undertaken, even if it was under coercion, or their fear of not being recognised as a victim of coercive control and of child criminal exploitation might drive a wedge between the child, the police and the other services, because they will be afraid of saying, "Yes, I took drugs", "Yes, I delivered drugs" or, "Yes, I committed criminal offences at age 12, 13 and 10"? The risk is that, instead of a child seeking help for what happened at that young age and being diverted away from that activity, they will be afraid of disclosing what is happening to them. For example, if a young girl is taken from a care home, fed full of drugs and God knows what else happens to her while she is absent from that place, the bigger fear on her part might be admitting that she has taken drugs. As a result, all the other exploitation that took place might never be uncovered. That is the difference between criminalising the behaviours of a young, vulnerable person and trying to put in place proper protective measures. I agree with the Member that such measures are not there yet. I have said that a number of times, but I believe that they can and should be there and that the justice system should not be there to take up that slack.

Mr Frew: The Minister has just reliably informed the House of current failures in our criminal justice system, whereby a young person could be scared to come forward to an authority figure that could help them: a police officer, a social worker or anyone else for that matter.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way again.

Mrs Long: They are afraid because they have committed a criminal offence. They are fearful that they will end up in a youth justice centre or, when they are older, Hydebank Wood or that they will end up with a criminal record that might stop them ever being able to travel outside the jurisdiction. It is not that they are afraid of the individuals. My colleague already talked about the importance of relationship building in getting young people to have that trust and confidence. That is what the Youth Justice Agency does every day. With respect, it is not a failure of the justice system. The justice system engages with vulnerable young people who have committed offences to try to divert them from the system at the earliest point, but that will not happen until there has been some finding of fact against them. That is the damage that is done, and that is what they are afraid of when it comes to making disclosures.

Mr Frew: The Minister mentions that there is fear of coming forward because they may have committed an offence, but I suggest that the real fear for those children comes from being under the jackboot of criminal gangs. They are being bullied and coerced into that activity, sometimes without a choice. They do not want to do what they are doing, and they should know that they can come forward to the police. The police should be in a position where they know that that child has been exploited.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I want to make this point while it is in my head. Sian said that, when a child is caught up in the criminal justice system, the question that should be asked is, "What happened to that child?". That is the fundamental question that should be asked. If that is not happening now, why not? Why are the police not asking that question? She said it is about asking, "What can we do to support that child?". Surely the police ask that question too. That is fundamental. I agree with Sian and others who push that, because we need to make sure that we ask the right questions to identify a child who is being exploited. We should not have a binary system whereby we say, "This child has committed a crime; therefore, they are a criminal". We should not do that in the criminal justice system, and I do not believe that we do or, at least, have not done for hundreds of years. That is why we treat children differently in our justice system. If the Minister is saying that that does not happen, that is a failure of our criminal justice system that needs to be fixed.

I will give way again.

Mrs Long: I am not saying that it does not happen. The Member is right: we have special dispensation in our criminal justice system. Those of us who are familiar with what it does recognise the good job that the Youth Justice Agency does. However, the public have their own views. I have spoken with parents of children who have gone through the youth justice system who find that they and their other children are ostracised in the community because one of their children has ended up in the youth justice system or the police have come to the door or whatever it might be. It is not only the child who has done something wrong but the entire family who are stigmatised and ostracised by the community.

The Member will recall that we talked about coercive control in adult relationships. There are some young people who, when they go off the rails, see the person who is coercing them as a boyfriend, a friend or someone who has taken care of them, and they are afraid of getting that person into trouble. They are afraid of the consequences for themselves because they know that they have done something wrong, but they are also afraid of getting that individual into difficulties. Therefore, we need to maximise the opportunities, particularly at the younger end of the spectrum, for young people to come forward, make those disclosures and share that information without fear of repercussions on themselves. Sadly, the one area where, I think, we are failing — it is not solely the Youth Justice Agency or the PSNI but across the board — is the small number of young people who are involved in criminal activity as the result of grooming by adults who end up not being referred to the national referral mechanism, which we talked about earlier, because they are not seen as victims of trafficking or modern slavery but instead are seen as what? They are seen as criminals, because that is how they present in the first instance to the Police Service.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that. It was lengthy, and I have lost the run of things and forgotten what I was going to say. The issue that the Minister has raised is the point that I make. Our system has to be better at treating young people who come into it. However, there must be accountability. The Minister talks about the impact on families when a child is caught up in the criminal justice system, but she will not be able to produce a framework, as she has said she is going to do, with end-to-end pathways with specific protocols of which we have no specific details. She will not be able to produce any framework that does not create that same stigma for those families and for others. The Minister will not be able to do that. That is why all of this should be embedded in the criminal justice system in order to ensure that there is accountability, as much as anything else.

We all know that there are cases where young people go to the same house every night to attack the householders and to damage and destroy property. That is a massive issue. If those children knew that what they were doing was not criminal, they would be encouraged even more to engage in that activity. That is why accountability must come into this. If you leave out the criminal justice system, you remove the accountability piece. All of the other good stuff — the frameworks, the pathways, the care — is good stuff that needs to be produced. I want to see the day when they are produced. However, we are having this debate at the start of the process when we should have it at the end.

I will leave it there, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr O'Toole: I must confess, having been so used to the sound of Mr Frew's voice for the last while, it is a bit of a surprise that his speech has ended so suddenly. [Laughter.]

I will be somewhat briefer on amendment No 82 than offers have been thus far. There is no explicit or implicit criticism of others for what they have said, because it has been a really useful debate. Clearly, it is a subject that is hugely important. There is much academic literature and international experience to draw on, and the Justice Committee has taken significant amounts of evidence on it.

It goes without saying that my colleague Patsy McGlone has been stalwart in dealing with the Bill. One or two of us are speaking in order to share the burden, as other parties are doing, in relation to amendments. We support amendment No 82, which is why we have co-signed it. It is important to start from the position of acknowledging what the criminal justice system is designed to do. It needs to meet the needs of a number of groups: victims of crime, obviously; those who commit or are accused of committing crimes; and society as a whole, meaning the wider needs of people who want to live in a safe society where justice is done and seen to be done.

There is an international debate about the appropriate minimum age of criminal responsibility. It is important to say, first, that Northern Ireland is an outlier, as are other jurisdictions in the UK whose minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10. As Sian Mulholland said, the average age is, in fact, 14 in states where a minimum age of criminal responsibility is defined. The overwhelming majority of international best practice, the academic literature and studies on the subject are clear that the best way to secure the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people in the groups that I mentioned — victims, perpetrators or alleged perpetrators and society writ large — is for the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be higher than 10. Amendment No 79 sets it down that the minimum age should be 14, with specific exceptions. Mr Frew has explained, drawing on comments by Professor Kevin Brown of Queen's University, why he sees flaws in the list of exceptions, but it is important to say that Professor Brown, along with a swathe of other academic criminologists and people who study the criminal justice system and youth services — most of them, in fact — is clear that the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland should go up and should have gone up years ago. Indeed, he described the status quo as "hard to defend" — no pun intended.

The question about listing the exceptions is really a question of implementation and of how those exceptions interact with other potential pathways in the criminal justice system — Mr Frew talked about potential lesser pleas in the judicial system — or with other statutory services that engage with young people who are being investigated or held to account for the crimes that are listed in amendment No 82 as exceptions. Fundamentally, however, those are questions of implementation. That is not to diminish or dismiss them, but they are about how the exceptions are implemented.

It is also true, as Emma Sheerin pointed out, that the exceptions exist in part to address broader public concern or a public perception that people would not want to have a blanket change to the minimum age of criminal responsibility without any exception for the most serious crimes. Of course, many people in academia would simply say, "No, actually, if you are to be clear and consistent, you should raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility without exceptions", but I would say this: we are politicians, and the point about being politicians is that we work to achieve progressive change and improve the lives of our citizens by bringing as many people along as we can. Including the exceptions is an attempt to do that. It is a serious attempt to make clear to the public —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second.

It is a serious attempt to make clear to the public that the direction of travel is to raise the age of criminal responsibility while addressing any perceptions that doing so will simply lead to an added risk of people's guilt — they would be found guilty, because they would be capable of being charged and found guilty of those offences — being mitigated. It is reasonable for legislators to want to do that when they are bringing forward change that is relatively novel.

I give way to Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: The most important thing is that we think of the public rather than about bringing along people in this place.

Do you have any concern, as I do, about something as nonsensical as attempted murder or rape being prosecutable but not conspiracy to murder or rape or aiding and abetting murder or rape? How is that fair? How does that work?

Mr O'Toole: First, I did not say "people in this Chamber"; I said "the public" writ large. You are picking a series of, from your perspective, contradictions and saying, "Why this but not that?". The straw man is that all those people aged 11, 12 and 13 would simply be left to crack on and that there would be no intervention or management of them. That is just not true. There is no point in shuffling your papers theatrically and smirking, Mr Burrows. As has been laid out, if a young person were being investigated for those things, the idea that they would simply be left alone and that statutory services would not be closely engaged with them is fanciful. It is irresponsible to suggest that that would be so.

This is the really important point: I presume, through the Chair, that you will acknowledge that, once young people enter the criminal justice system, all the evidence, including the statistics, shows that they are much more likely to reoffend. Is that not true?

Mr Burrows: It is possible.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Burrows, who is the scion of everything about the criminal justice system, is refusing to engage in this one question: does entering the criminal justice system mean that people are more likely to reoffend? Am I right or wrong?

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way if he answers my question.

Mr Burrows: The fundamental problem with that statistically is that it does not have a control sample. You are saying that someone who commits an offence will naturally have a propensity to commit more offences and, therefore, by definition, will be more likely to be in the criminal justice system in the future. It is a vacuous argument.

You talked about irresponsibility. Frankly, it is irresponsible to pass a law that you do not understand.

Mr O'Toole: No, no.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Excuse me, gentlemen. Through the Chair, please. You are both seasoned practitioners at this stage. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: There we have it: Mr Burrows is impugning the motives and the intelligence of people who happen to disagree with his expertise. It is completely reasonable for him to take a different position, but the proposition that he just posited to me is a false one. I do not know whether he talked about a person who was guilty of or was being investigated for those offences. That might be more true, or exactly true, were that to be a 25-year-old, a 35-year old or a 45-year-old. We are talking about children. The point is that, when we are talking about children at age 11, 12 or 13 —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole, can I have your indulgence for a moment?

I wish to inform Members that valid petitions of concern have been presented today in relation to amendment Nos 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 and 86. The debate on the group 6 amendments can still proceed. That will immediately be followed by debates on the amendments in groups 7, 8 and 9 at the appropriate points. However, the votes on the amendments will not be taken after the debate on group 6 has concluded, as section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires that there now be a 14-day consideration period —.

Some Members: Shame.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, I have a lot of this brief to read. I will be heard.

Section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires that there now be a 14-day consideration period, beginning today. The consideration period ends on 28 June 2026. The petitions may be confirmed only on the day after the consideration period, which is 29 June 2026, by 30 Members. They may not be confirmed after that date. If the petitions are confirmed by 30 Members on 29 June, the votes on the amendments to which they relate will require cross-community support. If the petitions are not confirmed by 30 Members, the votes on the amendments to which they relate will require simple majority support. [Interruption.]

Quiet, please. In either case, the votes on amendments will not take place until a date after 29 June. As amendments are moved and voted in the order in which they are listed on the Marshalled List, the Assembly cannot vote on any other amendments or remaining clauses until it has voted on the amendments that are subject to the petitions of concern.

To reiterate, the debate on the group 6 amendments will continue and will be immediately followed by the debates on groups 7, 8 and 9. If that is clear, we shall proceed with the debate. I ask Mr O'Toole to return to his contribution.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me be clear about what has just happened. It is an utter farce and a travesty of democracy. Once again, these institutions are being dragged into disrepute by parties that cannot accept democracy and the fact that we are allowed to debate issues here. I have just been engaging in good faith with Mr Burrows about the pros and cons of amendment No 82. I listened to his arguments, and I put my arguments back to him. I was then interrupted by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to be told that Mr Burrows and his colleagues have done some deal with the DUP. Perhaps he has done a deal with his colleagues — those who are or are not supporting him in his Assembly group — to block the will of the Assembly to vote on that amendment. To be clear, amendment No 82 does not contain anything that relates to the vital interests of one community or another. I am not aware that it mentions unionists, nationalists or core constitutional issues at all. It does not threaten core issues of identity.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a second to Mr Carroll.

It does not cut across anyone's identity or constitutional perspective whatsoever, which is the core reason that the petition of concern was created for these institutions in the first place. The amendment increases the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is something that most criminologists think is sensible. The amendment includes some exceptions, and people are taking issue with some of the practicalities of it. All of that is almost irrelevant now, however, because we are not even going to be able to debate it. Why?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second to the Justice Minister.

It is because Mr Burrows and his party have joined the DUP in abusing the petition of concern. Let me say this: earlier on today —.

Mr Givan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Member, who is rather irate, to say that Members have abused the use of the petition of concern? [Interruption.]

All Members have discharged their responsibilities according to the processes of the Assembly. That is why they are valid petitions of concern, and that is why the amendments will now be stopped. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, the point of order has been made and been noted. What I read out is a substantive note on a substantial issue, so some robust debate in the Chamber is to be expected. Mr O'Toole, back to you.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way to Mr Carroll and the Minister of Justice in a second, because I am sure that they will have fairly legitimate and robust opinions to make about the announcement as well. What has happened today is an absolute disgrace, and I make this point to unionist Members across the Chamber. This is not a constitutional issue at all, but it is, I am afraid, the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP that have now blocked the amendments.

Earlier on, successive Members opposite got up and ranted and raved about Fine Gael, a party south of the border, for daring to speak about the constitutional future of this island. Have some self-awareness, lads. You continue to plunge this place into dysfunction. You continue to block the ability of people here to make change. The amendments have nothing to do with the constitution or with identity, yet you are using the petition of concern — abusing it — in order —.

Mr Buckley: It was all right when it suited you.

Mr O'Toole: When? When has the SDLP —?

Mr Buckley: That is right. You are only a johnny-come-lately. Your party is not.

Mr Givan: Your party put the petition of concern in the 1998 agreement.

Mr O'Toole: Utterly ridiculous.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: In one second, Mr Carroll. Utterly ridiculous. I will give way now.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: I will say this, however: think about the functioning of this institution.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: That is something that you have talked about consistently.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole, I am standing up. As I have already said, we can expect some robust debate about the use of the petition of concern, but it must happen according to the conventions of the Assembly. Everybody, take it down a notch.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he agree that the use of the petition of concern represents an abuse of it and shows that the DUP and the Member to my right, who is staring at me in a weird way again, have simply lost the argument and that all they have left to roll out is that mechanism? Does the Member agree that that is why they have done it?

Mr O'Toole: I agree with that. To be clear, it is legitimate for the Members opposite to disagree with raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. What it is not legitimate for them to do is to use a mechanism that was designed to protect core issues for designated communities in order simply to block legislation. Mr Burrows in particular has come into the Assembly, and I respect his ability to get media attention and all of that, because that is what politicians do, but he was previously laying down the law, calling the odds on absolutely everything and saying how Stormont had to work better. He said that Stormont had to work better in order for Northern Ireland to function, but he then pulls nonsense such as this.

Do not expect people to say, "God, Northern Ireland works great. Stormont works great", when you do stuff like this, Mr Burrows. I am afraid that it is true that people will draw conclusions about the functioning of these institutions and the willingness of unionist politicians to make this place work. I am afraid that that is just true. That is just true.

Mr Givan: It is majority rule.

Mr O'Toole: It is not majoritarianism, as the Minister of Education suggests from a sedentary position.

Mr Givan: It was all right when it was on your side.

Mr O'Toole: We have never abused it for anything. That is ridiculous.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. Clearly, MACR was going to divide the House, but at least it was going to divide it along matters that we were debating and on which we had differences of opinion. The problem with the petition of concern is that it is utterly disrespectful to the House, because instead of letting the majority of Members debate the issues and reach a conclusion, we have a minority abusing a petition that is there to protect minority rights and using it to impose their will on the majority.

Frankly, that is why the public think that this place is farcical. Even on a night like this, when we are having serious engagement about serious matters, we cannot constrain ourselves to behaving like any other Chamber would and allow these matters to go through on a straight vote. Yet again, as the Minister who brings the Bill, but not the amendments, I will be disenfranchised, alongside my colleagues, because my vote will count for less than that of Mr O'Toole and everyone else on this side of the House. So, I thank the DUP on the record for reinforcing the case that I have been making about why it is an invidious provision in these institutions and why it needs to be reformed. I am glad that, finally, two Governments and at least four parties are talking about reform. As for Mr Burrows's chat on reform, we will take that with the pinch of salt that it deserves, because he clearly is not interested in making these institutions more functional. He is interested in slipstreaming behind the DUP and the TUV wherever they go, and you know what happens when you get caught in their backwash.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been generous in taking interventions. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is something that was going to divide the House. Members had different views on it. It is a sensible and progressive thing, and many people in the children's rights sector believe that this would have been an opportunity for Northern Ireland — yes, Northern Ireland, the jurisdiction that the Members opposite claim to care so much about — to prove itself to be able to make positive and progressive change. However, I am afraid to say that the two major unionist parties have decided that they do not want that to happen. That is deeply regrettable. People in this jurisdiction will draw their own conclusions about whether your two parties are serious about wanting to make this place work. That is the harsh truth, guys. Once again, it makes the argument for the fundamental reform of the institutions and proves the need to reform them.

I will give way to the Education Minister for the sake of positive debate.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member giving way. I have my name down to speak in the debate on this group of amendments, and I will do so later. I rise to make the point to the Member, and others, that, on this occasion, they regard the petition of concern as something that is frustrating the will of the Assembly. I remind the SDLP that you signed a petition of concern to prevent the sanctioning of Gerry Kelly by the Standards and Privileges Committee when he climbed on the bonnet of a police vehicle. You and your party signed the petition of concern to prevent that. We will not be lectured by the SDLP or others on the POC.

Mr Buckley: Only when it suits.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Order, ladies and gentlemen. Mr O'Toole, would you care to continue?

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much. I am delighted to have given way to the Education Minister, because I am afraid that he has proved how empty the arguments are. That was a historic event, I have no idea of the background to it — I was somewhere else. Whataboutery is not going to rescue people's faith in these institutions. Ultimately, you must know that people need to trust that devolved Government can work here. If they do not, the alternative is not something that any of you want. It is tragic that the DUP has succeeded in pulling this stunt tonight, and it is particularly tragic that the Ulster Unionists, under Mr Burrows, have gone along with it for reasons of their own. People will increasingly look at this dysfunctional and, at times, frankly preposterous institution and wonder what we are doing here when a majority of MLAs who want to make a legislative change and are wiling to debate it robustly are blocked from doing so by a minority. That is deeply worrying. It is a shame, and it speaks very poorly of the Members who have pulled that stunt tonight.

I do not think that there is anything more to say.

Ms Sheerin: Like the Member who just spoke, I am appalled by what we have just witnessed. I feel sorry for the new leader of the UUP. You watched how the DUP used masked men last weekend and then criticised and condemned masked men in the following days. Just watch how you will be treated in years to come when you have done their bidding.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Sheerin, can we keep to the content of the debate? A point of order, Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: Is it appropriate for the Member to allege that Members used masked men last weekend? That is clearly not true. In fact, it is defamatory. [Interruption.]

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sorry, Emma, I have not finished just yet. Ladies and gentlemen, feelings are, quite rightly, high after the announcement that I have just made. We shall have some decorum in the Chamber, and please be careful with your use of language. I am all up for robust debate, and I will moderate it as it goes. Over to you, Emma.

Ms Sheerin: I will always be careful with my language, so apologies if "used" was not the right term. "Stood with", "encouraged", "raised hands with" or whatever phraseology you want to use, the fact is that the DUP stood in a line with masked men to criticise grannies marching against the genocide in Gaza, and, then, a few days later, when it no longer suited the narrative, the DUP criticised masked men who were burning people out of their homes because of the colour of their skin. I used that example on the basis that you should exercise caution. You have been used — we all know that you have been used — and that is sad for you, but it is really sad for the children of the North of Ireland, who this legislation would have protected. That is the reality.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes, I will.

Mr Burrows: I stood in the middle of the Newtownards Road confronting people who were wearing masks, with no police presence and surrounded by 50 or 60 men. Nobody uses me, nobody intimidates me and I always stand for victims. [Interruption.]

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have had a robust debate. We have heard from parties on all sides of the House through interventions and contributions. Standing Order 25 is on "Closure of Debate". I ask that the Question now be put to a vote. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): If you wait for one moment, we will check Standing Order 25 and confirm.

Ms Sheerin: A LeasCheann Comhairle,

I do not require a delay. This is a farce and an abuse of parliamentary procedures, and I am no longer taking part. Slán.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, take your ease while we read into this. Thank you.

Ms Bradshaw, will you approach the Table, please?

We are now ready to resume the debate. Emma Sheerin is no longer in her place.

Mr Burrows: At the very core of my values is putting victims and public protection first; it would go against every fibre of my being to do anything less. Some debates in the Chamber are administrative, technical or abstract. This one was not. This debate was going to fundamentally change our justice system; it went to the heart of public safety, of victims having accountability and of the Police Service and Public Prosecution Service being able to prove or disprove an offence. Frankly, it was in danger of confusing compassion and dangerous naivety.

There is nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge, and what I have heard tonight demonstrates, I am afraid, a little knowledge. There have been fundamental misunderstandings of what the minimum age of criminal responsibility —.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. As he knows, my party colleague Sian Mulholland spoke for nearly two hours. For a good percentage of that time, he was not in the Chamber, so how can he possibly state that she had not done her research or looked into every crevice of the amendment?

Mr Burrows: The record will show that I was about three or four minutes late.

Some Members: Ooh.

Mr Burrows: In any case, what I have heard is sufficient.

There has been a fundamental misunderstanding in the Chamber about what the minimum age of criminal responsibility is. I genuinely believe that, if a responsible legislature were going to make such a significant change, the place would have been full. Westminster or the Dáil would be full. This place is half empty.

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

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will not give way at the minute. [Interruption.]

I will give way in one second.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Order. Order, everybody.

Mrs Long: Everybody else is here, but your party is not.

Mr Burrows: And the Member's — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Order, order. The Member will be heard. Thank you.

Mr Burrows: There was a fundamental misunderstanding of what the minimum age of criminal responsibility is. The interventions were consistently about diversion instead of putting people into prison. That happens under the existing law because the minimum age of criminal responsibility does not relate to how an offender is dealt with once there is a case against them but is the minimum floor at which an offender can enter the criminal justice system. The vast majority of young people aged 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or even 15 are —

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way in one second.

— diverted anyway. We have a compassionate and flexible criminal justice system that makes diversion the primary way of dealing with young people but gives the option for the police to gather evidence to intervene in a case and, in extremis, to take cases to court. Amendment No 82 in particular was ill-thought-out. Let me spell out precisely what amendment No 82 says. If I have read it correctly, there is complete immunity for any child of 10 or 11 for any offence. If the amendment that is co-signed by the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin and the SDLP were to pass, a 10-year-old who was in exactly the same circumstances as those involved in the Jamie Bulger case — it is right to talk about a serious case, because serious cases, although rare, are not non-existent — were to abduct, torture and murder someone, as was done to Jamie Bulger, the police could not even arrest them, seize their clothes, subject them to forensic evidence —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes, I will give way.

Mrs Long: To whom?

Mr Tennyson: To whom?

Mr Burrows: You first, Mr Tennyson.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. He talked about "a little knowledge". Last week, he sat alongside his deputy leader and did not even know what amendments he was voting on in the Justice Bill debate, yet he comes into the Chamber today and professes his knowledge. I ask the Member this: what grubby deal did you do with the DUP and your own party members? Is Alan Chambers now on the Ulster Unionist ticket? Is the DUP promising a unity candidate in Lagan Valley? What grubby deal did you do on the petition of concern, Mr Burrows?

Mr Givan: Wise up.

Mr Burrows: We are talking about the rights of victims who are sexually abused and about justice, and that is the best that you can do. That was a shameful intervention.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way. Hopefully, it is for a better intervention than that one.

Mrs Long: Would the Member like to set out exactly what would have happened if the people who murdered Jamie Bulger had been nine years old — just a few months younger than they were?

Mr Burrows: It may surprise those who are listening at home that I am not proposing to change the law. It is not for me to propose that. The age of 10 is a minimum floor that has worked. Let us look at it. The exact circumstances —. They can shake their heads, but what if one of their constituents approached them and said, "My child was abducted, tortured and murdered, and there are two suspects, both of whom deny it, and the Police Service can't even make an arrest to confirm or dispel which one did it"?

When I raised the fact about taking biometric samples, such as DNA — I think that it was to Ms Mulholland's disappointment — the Justice Minister jumped to her feet and said that they could do it voluntarily. Voluntarily? Someone has been raped or murdered, and we are relying on a voluntary requirement.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. All of us have these things in front of us called "microphones". Can you remind the Member that there is no need to gulder and wave papers? We are also not supposed to use props. I know that he is used to being theatrical, but it is getting a bit out of hand.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank the Minister for her intervention. We should not wave Order Papers around, but I have seen numerous people doing it throughout the debate. Providing that it is an Order Paper, it is not a prop, but I will take advice on that. Be careful with the microphones. There is no place for guldering.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way to Mr Givan.

Mr Givan: I appreciate Mr Burrows giving way and commend him for the way that he has navigated things in his party. [Laughter.]

He referred to the Jamie Bulger case, and I noted that, when the Alliance Party Member asked him to give way, Mr Tennyson did not talk about that case. The judge found that those children, at 10 years of age, had perfect competence to carry out a heinous crime and murder. The Member is more of an expert in the area than I am, so will he take time to walk Members through the nature of the crime and the judgement in respect of the ability of those children to have premeditated it and executed it in a way that merited that sentence so that people understand that, in extremity, we absolutely need to have the legislation and the criminal age of responsibility set at the current bar? That is why many of us decided that it would be inappropriate to have an amendment rushed through the Assembly in the way that that was being done. That is not the way to do things. Can he elaborate on that case?

Mr Burrows: The Bulger case in Liverpool involved Venables and Thompson, two 10-year-olds, who selected a victim. It was clear that they were out looking for a victim. Some Members are shaking their heads, but we are talking about a real case. [Interruption.]

The victim's parents are still — [Interruption.]

These are important matters, and my voice should be heard. [Interruption.]

We are talking about a toddler who was abducted, selected —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Burrows, I appreciate the genuine concerns about some horrific cases, but I would like the discussions to be germane to the debate. I appreciate what Mr Givan asked in his intervention, but, in respect of the debate, we need to manage our language carefully.

Mr McGrath, you and I both know that we do not gulder from a sedentary position.

Mr Burrows: We have established that, between the ages of 10 and 11, there is complete immunity, and then, between the ages of 12 and 13, there is immunity for all offences bar five that effectively relate to murder, rape, attempted murder and attempted rape. It is all done by an amendment: a radical rewriting of our criminal justice law in Northern Ireland not with extensive research but with a Back-Bench amendment. Fundamentally, the failure of those who have tabled and supported the amendment is that they see the world as they want to see it and not the world as, I am afraid, it is. I have seen that world, in which a child was held in a room and gang-raped by other teenagers. It is horrible, and the things that you see you cannot unsee.

I will never tell a victim of crime that she has no choice about whether a case is brought. I asked the question, and it was dodged. I was given examples of where, sometimes, victims do not want to take a case to court, but if a victim has been seriously assaulted and had their house burnt down or if a family has been wiped out by joyriders who caused death by dangerous driving, they do not even get the option of whether the persecutor can be taken to court.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member, like me, read the intervention from Jim Gamble at the weekend. He talked explicitly about the potential exploitation of children. He is an expert in the field. Does the Member agree with that analysis and why it is so important to ensure that we keep the criminal age of responsibility at 10?

Mr Burrows: Absolutely. I will address that point specifically in one moment.

Let me give Members some cold, hard facts and examples of real offending that would not be a crime, that could not be investigated by the police and that would result in the victim not having any say in whether a criminal case was taken. I will explain some of them. In a case of aiding and abetting rape by someone who was a day short of 14 years of age — I will give not a theoretical example but an example of something that happened in England last year — someone was prosecuted just last month and convicted. We are in some imaginary world where, if a group of people are responsible for a heinous crime, we are saying that the person who is guilty of attempted murder should face the full rigours of the law and go to prison for life, yet someone who aided and abetted or conspired to commit that murder and is equally culpable under our existing law cannot even be arrested. How would the police investigate a conspiracy if all those who conspired had not committed an offence, only the person who committed the substantive offence? They could not seize their phones. They could not seize their clothes. The conspirators could not be interrogated in an interview. That simply does not make sense. There is no logical explanation for why attempted murder could be prosecuted but not conspiracy to murder. It is stuff for the birds, but this is legislation. The answer that has been given is that five offences were picked to avoid public outrage. Seeking to avoid public outrage is exactly not the way to make law.

I have listened to the testimony of schoolgirls and teachers. The following things would not be against the law in Northern Ireland for anyone who was one day shy of their fourteenth birthday, yet this is what parties are passing a law about tonight [Interruption.]

Upskirting — [Interruption.]

If I may be heard.

Mr Tennyson: We are not going to be heard, so why should we listen to you?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Tennyson, I appreciate that tensions are running high, that people are concerned and that issues have arisen today, but we are not going to behave like that. Members should not yell at other Members from a sedentary position. It is unedifying. Do not do that.

Mr Burrows: Upskirting would not be a crime. What signal would that send to a society that has a problem with femicide and extreme misogyny? There are young men who watch extreme porn and are influenced by online bigots and misogynists who think that it is OK to upskirt a schoolteacher.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way to Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: To be honest, it almost feels utterly pointless to continue to debate any of the amendments, because we will not be allowed to have a legitimate vote on them, Mr Burrows. By the way, I disagree with your opinions, but you are entitled to hold them. I am not trying to silence your voice. The problem is that, by signing the petitions of concern and perhaps doing a deal with what is left of your parliamentary group, you have created a situation in which the entire debate will be rendered pointless. It is all well and good to fulminate, but do you understand that you, of your own volition, have fundamentally called into question the operability of these institutions? Do you understand that? Many people who want this place to work will be watching our proceedings with hope and a degree of exasperation, and they will see this nonsense tonight and think, "This is being blocked again".

Mr Frew: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it right and proper for Members across the Chamber to impugn a man's character, whereby he is not allowed to make a decision on the functioning of the House, namely to sign a petition of concern on a point of principle? Instead, it is being said that he has made some sort of dirty deal or engaged in some sort of political negotiation. A person will sign a petition of concern on a point of principle.

Mr Burrows: Every time that I try to give real —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Burrows. Members should accept an intervention, and Members should be called, but we need to avoid abusing points of order in order to make points. We must make sure that decorum remains. Do Members understand?

Mr Burrows: It seems that, when reality collides with theory, those on the opposite side of the House want to shout me down.

Let me finish the examples that I was giving. Upskirting would not be a crime if the suspect was one day below 14, and, if the teacher rang the police because the suspect denied it and that person had an image on their phone that they wanted to circulate, the police could not even seize the phone to prove or disprove the offence. What does that say to women in our society? What way is that to treat women in our society? Ms Sheerin said, "Well, they can wear trousers". Hang on a second: women should not have to wear trousers to avoid being upskirted in our schools. I supported pupils' right to wear trousers if they wish, but I am —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): On that point, Sinéad.

Ms Ennis: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. There was a proposal from Paula Bradshaw a few moments ago in respect of Standing Order 25. Have you made a ruling on that, and, if not, can you give some clarity to the House because, quite frankly, what we are engaging in is a farce? [Interruption.]

It is a farce. The Members opposite are gloating about it because they think that they have claimed some victory today. It is an abuse of Assembly time and an abuse of democracy. If you are not going to accept Standing Order 25, what is the point in any of us still being here tonight? It is a farce.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, you will notice that we have been taking considerable advice back and forth from the Speaker's Office during this period. I shall say this: for a closure motion, I am required to assess that all the parties present have had a reasonable opportunity to contribute to the debate. That is "all the parties present". I will continue with the debate until that point. That is what is laid down in Standing Orders, and that is the advice that we have had from the Speaker's Office. That is what we shall continue to do.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. I do not think that that is good enough. You need to bring clarity to this debate and this debacle, because, frankly, if we are not going to have a vote on this, there is no point in continuing this farce, which is exactly what it is. With all due respect, Deputy Speaker, how can you make a ruling on this while still sitting in the Chair during the debate?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Do you want me to repeat what I have just said?

Ms Ennis: I want you to make a ruling.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have made a ruling. A closure motion will be held, if it has been raised, after the appropriate number of parties have been heard. There have been indications to the Chair that other parties wish to speak. We will continue with the debate until that point.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that you will wait until all parties have had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. However, I stand here not as a member of a political party but as a Minister, and I will therefore not have an opportunity to address the amendments, even though all parties will have had that opportunity. Is that in order?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, I have taken advice from the Chair: when all parties have spoken, the closure motion can happen. That is what the rules and the Standing Orders of the Assembly say.

Ms Sugden: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I confirm that "all parties" includes the two independent Members? I have not had any opportunity through representatives of a party, because I do not belong to one, to say what I need to say in the debate. May I suggest that the Members who do not want to continue with the debate remove their names from the speaking list?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Sugden, the indications are clearly that it will be other parties present and independent Members as well. That is taken as a given.

Mr Burrows, back to you.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I will run through some other offences. Downblousing would not be a crime, and the victim could not get any justice, nor would cyberflashing, deepfake porn or threats of rape. There are cases in Northern Ireland where children and teachers have been threatened with rape. If they rang the police, the police would say that no crime was committed. That is a horrendous signal at the wrong time. It is also the case with sexual humiliation and harassment. This is not progressive; it is deeply irresponsible. I asked the Justice Minister this: was the amendment screened in the context of violence against women and girls and against our Executive-wide strategy to combat violence against women and girls? The answer was no: we had not even assessed that. That was deeply irresponsible.

Let me turn to the five offences that are listed. The fact that five offences and five offences only were listed is an example of the irrationality of the amendment. There is a glaring contradiction. At the first point, we say that young people are not able to understand right from wrong. We then say that we are prepared to put a young person on trial for their liberty for life in the most complex, high-stress Crown Court environment: a murder trial. We say that they do not understand a lesser charge but are able to navigate a Crown Court case.

The other contradiction is that you can be, as I said, charged with murder or attempted murder but not conspiracy to murder. You can be charged with attempted murder but not GBH with intent. Even if someone showed understanding of what they did, such as the premeditated petrol bombing of a migrant's house — they wore a balaclava, they went home after, washed and got changed, and they had alibis all lined up, which would show premeditation, an understanding of criminal law and that they knew that what they were doing was wrong — they could not face justice. However, somebody who punches another person once and they fall and hit their head off the kerb could face life imprisonment. That is where arbitrary offences simply do not make sense. I will put you through that again. Someone who has planned a murder over months and months would be deemed not to understand the offence, but someone who has struck another person once in an emotional bad temper and that person then hit their head off a kerb could be convicted for life. That is not fair. It is not justice. The amendment is not fit for purpose.

Legal flexibility would completely disappear from our criminal justice system. We have one of the best youth diversion systems in Europe. We have a compassionate and human rights-compliant police service. It has been said to me that the age of criminal responsibility in some despotic countries is higher than it is in Northern Ireland, as if that were a sign that we have a human rights problem. I ask you this: would you rather your son or daughter were arrested in Northern Ireland, where the criminal age of responsibility is 10, or in a despotic country like Russia, where there is a higher age of criminal responsibility? The age is not the issue; it is the fact that you have a police service that is human rights-compliant, proportionate and takes a compassionate view of young people. The PPS is extremely flexible. It charges only as a last resort. However, the system allows us not just to deal with serious cases but to gather evidence. The nuance would completely disappear —.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. He was talking about amendment Nos 79 and 82 and the disparity. I have listened carefully to the arguments that others have made in the Chamber, while, clearly, not agreeing with them. The proposed new clause lists the offences of murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration. Just to highlight the slightly arbitrary nature of that list of heinous crimes, I point out that attempted rape is not on that list. Murder, attempted murder and rape are on the list, but attempted rape is not. Therefore, a victim could be kidnapped, perhaps even bound, going through that trauma before being rescued at some point by a third party, yet that would not be chargeable under the amendments. I listened to those Members, most of whom are not here now because they have all gone home, and I have not understood from their arguments where that list has come from or why, for example, GBH with intent, which is another heinous crime, has somehow not made the list. Does the Member agree that the list looks arbitrary at best and poorly designed at worst?

Mr Burrows: The list has been drawn up on the back of a fag packet. It has been designed so that the Members who tabled the amendments can give some comfort to the public by saying, "Look: in this extreme case, action will be taken. Don't worry: there will be no outrage". However, it has been done so amateurishly as to include what is called the "incomplete offence" that can go with a serious offence. The substantive offence is murder, and what is called the "incomplete" or "inchoate" offence is attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, aiding and abetting or incitement. They are all treated exactly the same in law. If you incite murder, you are as culpable as the person who commits murder. The sentence is the same. If you conspire to murder, you are as culpable as the person who commits the murder. The amendment, drafted by a Back-Bencher, runs a coach and horses through that fundamental principle of our law. It says that the conspirer, the inciter, the aider and abetter is completely innocent —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: — but the person who commits it is completely guilty. I will give way to the Justice Minister.

Mrs Long: A number of amendments have been proposed by Back-Benchers in the passage of the debate, many of which were incoherent, including that from your former colleague, whose I do not believe was competent. However, the purpose of Further Consideration Stage — I know that the Member is an expert on everything, but maybe he has something to learn about legislation — is for the Assembly to have a further opportunity to refine any amendment that is made. The issues that have been raised will be taken away and looked at by the Department, and, should any additionality be required to give the complete suite of offences that fall under that determination and under the intention of the Member, that will be brought.

I have already discussed at length with Mr Frew the changes that will be required to some of the amendments that he tabled. It does not mean that he is naive or incompetent. It simply means that further work is needed. No Back-Bench Member has access to the drafting expertise that we have in the Department, which is why we work with other Members who wish to work with us to ensure that what we end up with at the end of the day is good legislation.

Mr Burrows: What a stunning admission of the absolute folly of making a fundamental change to our criminal justice system on the back of a Back-Bench amendment: that the Back-Benchers do not have the expertise to draft properly in law, and yet we were going to pass a law tonight that was going to endanger our citizens.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member in the Chamber to, yet again, take something that I said and twist it into something that I did not say? I did not say that Back-Bench Members of the House should not propose amendments to Bills. That would be foolishness, because Committees regularly do so. I welcome amendments from Members on the Back Benches. What I said was, very clearly — [Interruption.]

What I said clearly — [Interruption.]

If some people would be quiet, I could finish the point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker, is it in order for a Member of the House to take what I said and twist it into something that I did not say?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, the final decision on those points and any feedback on them will, of course, come from the Speaker's Office and will not be made by me at this moment. However, you will know from previous experience in the House and, indeed, from today, that those comments can be looked at by the Speaker's Office. Nevertheless, your comments and your clarification have been placed firmly on the record.

Before you continue, Mr Burrows, I make clear to the House and to all corners of the House, particularly those to my left, that I do not need anybody to gesticulate towards me or gesture or tell me what I should do or when I should stop someone or when I should call someone to order. I will make that decision, and no gesture will influence that. Please, Members, bear that in mind.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Speaker made a ruling about abuse of points of order. Please will you clarify from the Chair, which you have done on previous occasions, whether that was actually a point of order from the Justice Minister?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley, you and others have raised points of order that have been questioned from the Chair, including when I was in the Chair, so I will not go down that road now. I do not think that what was made earlier was a ruling. I think that I heard it. It was some advice by the Speaker who was occupying the Chair at the time, urging Members not to make lengthy points of order when they were not points of order. However, there was no ruling as such, and it certainly did not prevent others who came afterwards from making points of order, as you will be aware, so —.

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We are going to continue, Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): If you can refer your point of order to Standing Orders, I will take it. If you cannot, we will move on.

Mr Buckley: Deputy Speaker, I note that other Members did not, but I ask again, from the Chair — I know that you very much, as Deputy Speaker, have done it on previous occasions — can you please just answer the question? Was that a point of order from the Justice Minister?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I answered the question. Had you listened to the answer that I gave the Minister, you would have heard the answer. If you want me to repeat it, the answer was this, and I will condense it a bit: those matters are dealt with by the Speaker's Office; the decisions are made in that context; and the Minister's clarification had, nevertheless, been put on the record. I could not have been clearer, and I am not going to answer it again. That is the second time that I have answered it.

Ms Forsythe: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you make a ruling on whether it is in order for Members of the House, particularly Ministers, to declare that other Members are incompetent?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I will give a similar answer to the one that I gave before: those matters are dealt with by the Speaker's Office, and you will be advised accordingly.

Mr Burrows: I would never speak ill of my former colleague.

The five offences that are listed — [Interruption.]

May I continue?

No evidence has been presented for why the five offences are listed and other offences are not, other than that it may be because of the expertise of the drafters. Why is there a cliff edge by age or by offence? Why should conspiracy to murder receive no consequences but murder receive life imprisonment? Why is a child able to understand the complexity of a murder case in a Crown Court but not a shoplifting case in a Magistrates' Court? Such irrationalities litter the Bill. It simply does not stand up to any scrutiny.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. In the Minister's exchange with you, she was referring to the fact that, if a minor tweak to an amendment tabled by a Back-Bencher is required, that can be resolved at Further Consideration Stage. I will work with any Department to iron that out. To remove the list, as the Member is talking about, would require a fundamental change to the psyche and principle of the amendment. Incidentally, it is one of the amendments that I have tabled an amendment to amend. It was clear that the Member who tabled it was not going to entertain an amendment to the amendment. A fundamental change to the amendment would be required, and no one who is pushing that amendment is in that space.

Mr Burrows: I agree. The amendments are beyond rescuing. They would need to be fundamentally rewritten. The change would have to be made in a youth justice Bill. That is the appropriate and responsible way of dealing with the issue. In principle, I would like to strengthen some of the provisions of the youth justice system and put in place a legislative presumption of diversion for many crimes by 10- and 11-year-olds that would operate in practice under our current legislation. I will work with the Minister. I do not claim to have any expertise, but I spent 25 years in policing and commentating on policing. I have two degrees, including a master's degree, in this stuff. I have studied it for most of my adult life. I passionately believe that what we are doing is wrong.

Let me turn to investigative capability, which is one of the things that have been missed because of the fundamental misunderstanding of what the minimum age of criminal responsibility is. It affects the ability of the police to investigate a crime. Currently, under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, the police can carry out a criminal investigation of a crime only if the perpetrator is aged 10 or over. From there comes the power of arrest, interviews, bail conditions, taking samples and fingerprints and putting on an ID parade.

Let us go back to the Bulger murder case. Say that we have two suspects and a witness says, "I believe that it was those two", and the police want to arrange an identity parade. Quite simply, they could not. They would not have the power to arrest the suspects and put them in an identity parade. Members on the other side of the Chamber will say, "That is really just a minor issue, is it not?". It is not a minor issue for the parents of the murdered toddler; the woman who has been upskirted; the victim who has been tied up and raped; the person whose car has been burnt; the person whose home has been burnt down; or the person whose daughter has been driven to suicide by online abuse. Nowhere did I hear that from the Members on the other side of the House. They kept saying, "The children, the children, the children" in the frame of suspects. They talked about "the children, the children, the children" as the victims. The girls who are bullied and assaulted; the women —.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Burrows: No, I will not give way at the moment.

Ms K Armstrong: Of course you will not. You will just besmirch.

Mr Burrows: Can we just be polite to one another?

Let me go back to investigative capability. The criminal law is not just about punishment; it is about ascertaining the facts, gathering the evidence, securing justice and proving or disproving an offence. In fact, if you look at the duties of the PSNI, you will see that one of them, alongside bringing offenders to justice, is to prove or disprove offences. Anyone who understands criminal law knows that the police have a duty to find inculpatory evidence, which rules you in, and exculpatory evidence, which rules you out.

If you were accused of a serious crime at 13 and a half years of age — let us say that it was a very serious crime — the police, because they are not able to investigate it, would not be able to eliminate you and identify who the suspects were. I heard constantly from people on the other side of the House that there are other ways of dealing with the suspect, such as through social services. However, if the suspect denies the offence, how do you establish who did it without a criminal investigation? Are you, then, going to say to someone, "You are going to go through the youth" — [Interruption.]

Thank you for that. Are you going to say to someone, "You are going to go into child protection because we think that you have done something heinous", even though they did not do it and have no way of getting it disproved, because the police will not go out and arrest the real suspect. Those are real-life examples that those with criminology degrees and no common sense who belong to the lobby groups and the academic elites do not consider. This is the real world as it is, not as we want to see it.

What about repeat offenders? The amendment is silent about repeat offenders. If you have a 12- or 13-year-old who is out of control, the amendment would render the police unable even to put bail conditions on. I know about the attacks on the Fountain interface. It has been under serious attack for decades. When the police are able to intervene, they make an arrest. Someone gets bail conditions that state that they are not out during the summer or near the interface or that they cannot go within 200 metres of the victim's house. None of those is applicable. We would wipe away the police's ability to prevent crime. We talked about prevention here, in the woolly, nice sense of sitting down on a beanbag and chatting about it over a cuppa, when there are people who do bad things to innocent victims. Sometimes, you need the law to say, "No, you are not going out tonight", "No, you are on remand", and, "No, you are getting your fingerprints taken".

I know that no one wants to listen to the hard facts here. What about the cases where a suspect has committed a sexual offence but the Police Service says, "Well, that is not a crime, so we cannot deal with it", and it cannot take a DNA sample. That DNA is not on the system, meaning that, years later, if that person commits a serious crime and rapes someone as an adult, there is no comparison sample that would lead to their being arrested. Do you even consider those things when you draft these amendments? Do you consider that women in our society could be raped and there would not even be a DNA sample?

Miss McAllister: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Burrows: I will take an intervention, Miss McAllister.

Miss McAllister: I am intervening on this point, because you said that you had been involved in policing and the criminal justice system for over 20 years. Evidence is taken from a victim. You are saying that no evidence can be taken or collected. Evidence is taken from a victim. You will recall from your policing days that crimes can be investigated even where no charge is put to a suspect, because that is what happens.

Do you know what? Facts do matter. You know fine rightly that evidence can be collected from victims. You know that there does not even have to be a charge put for anyone to be referred to Victim Support or social services or for there to be safeguarding put in place or a curfew or interventions when it comes to social services. It is important to remember that facts matter in all of this.

Mr Burrows: Miss McAllister is showing that she does not understand the principle of the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The charge is irrelevant. That is how you dispose of a case when you have sufficient evidence. You either charge or you do not. She is quite right; you can gather evidence before a charge is put. If you put the age of criminal responsibility at 14, the police cannot —.

Mrs Long: Yes, they can.

Mr Burrows: I will challenge you. I have put questions to the Minister of Justice, and she has confirmed it in writing. If you set the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 14, the police do not have the power to interview, arrest or take samples, because all of that must be voluntary. Here is a situation that you are in: you put the children in a lottery where, if their parents cooperate —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way.

Mrs Long: To be clear —.

Mr Buckley: She is listening now.

Mrs Long: I have been listening all along. Trust me, I can multitask.

The issue is not that those things cannot be done. The issue here is that a child can be detained by the police. The rationale for doing so may be different, but, if a child who is under the age of criminal responsibility, as it stands at 10, were to commit any of the serious offences that you have mentioned, they could be detained by the police.

Yes, they would need a legal guardian with them, and, yes, they would have to give consent, but that is the case for anyone under the minimum age of criminal responsibility at present. Processes are already in place to deal with that.

I will repeat the question that I asked earlier, which you ignored. You are obsessing over one case, so answer me this: had the children who murdered Jamie Bulger been nine, would they have been able to walk away scot-free, with no action being taken against them? It is a simple question.

Mr Burrows: The powers of the police would not be criminal powers. Under police child protection laws, the police would be able to detain the child for up to 72 hours and put them in a place of safety, but the law would not allow for a criminal investigation. The police would not be able to take samples. I agree with Mrs Long. Had those children been nine years of age, the police could not have interviewed them or taken samples. We have a system in which 10 is the minimum floor, and there is no good reason to change it. I am not proposing to change it to nine, eight, seven or six. I am not proposing to change it at all.

Miss McAllister was wrong when she said that samples could be taken from the victim. Before I explain why she was wrong, I ask this: what sort of society says to the victim, "We can take an invasive" — I will say it — "vaginal swab from a victim, but we can't take a penile swab from a suspect"? What sort of law is that to pass in this place? It is disgusting that a girl has to wear trousers so that she cannot be upskirted. She said that the victim can give evidence, but the sample needs to be compared. The semen is needed from the suspect in order to compare it with the semen from the victim's vagina. That is the real world. She does not live in it. She is telling me about investigations and victims, but the victim would not be a victim, because there would not even be a crime. Evidence would not be able to be gathered from the suspect.

I look at the SDLP. I have the highest respect for the SDLP. [Interruption.]

I do. I have worked with the SDLP for many years in different guises. If you really were to read into this in depth, you would not go along with the amendments. If you had a constituent telling you, "I want justice. I have been subject to serious and repeat violations", you would not go along with saying, "I am sorry, but we passed a law that states that, no matter how serious an impact it had on you, how grave it was or how much it violated you, we have taken away your right. You do not have a voice. Your voice is irrelevant, because we are thinking of the child, and if the same suspect went out to do that to a different constituent, we would say the same thing". I will use every power in my being to stop women and girls being abused with impunity in this society. I make no apology for that.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way.

Mr Dickson: I will ask the Member one question. He speaks with incredible passion and, for some people, perhaps even with some authority and knowledge. Indeed, his words might be persuasive, but has he not the slightest comprehension that he totally and utterly lost the plot the moment that he, along with Ms Armstrong, Mr Chambers and Mr Butler, signed the petitions of concern? Does he not accept and appreciate that? If he genuinely believes in the arguments that he is forcefully and graphically putting in the House tonight, and if he stands by and genuinely understands those arguments and believes that the House should be persuaded by the words that he has used, why on earth did he sign the petitions of concern?

Mr Burrows: I will leave the petitions of concern for one minute. I will come back to them. When I walked into the Chamber, I was under no illusion. I knew that, whatever I said, it would not change the minds of Members here.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Burrows: This is law based on ideology. It is law based on a progressive fallacy. It is law based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how our youth justice system works. It is law that silences victims and empowers perpetrators. It is law —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way to Mrs Long. I always do.

Mrs Long: I am surprised not only that the Member feels that he speaks on behalf of policing, justice, victims and everyone else but that he now presumes to speak on behalf of the youth justice system. I can be very clear in saying that the experts in the youth justice system who deal with young people every day support a change.

Mr Burrows: I have heard from so many experts down the years. I will tell you who I listen to —

Mrs Long: Yourself.

Mr Tennyson: Yourself.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for the abuse. I do not abuse anyone in the Chamber. I might argue with passion and intensity, but it is always about facts.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I always give way to one of my favourite MLAs.

Ms K Armstrong: I wish that I were one of your favourite MLAs.

You have just talked about women who could be the victims of rape, and about their being disenfranchised. In the 10 years that I have been in the House, I have been disenfranchised when cross-community voting has been called. You have disenfranchised me. You do not know how I was going to vote.

Mr Burrows: Ach.

Mr Frew: It is not about you, Kellie.

Ms K Armstrong: You do not know how I was going to vote.

Mr Frew: This is ridiculous.

Mr Gaston: Come on. Pull the other one.

Mr Buckley: Come on, Kellie.

Ms K Armstrong: Can I speak? I have been given an intervention.

Mr Burrows, if you have any respect for women —

Mr Buckley: Shameful. Women have signed the POC.

Ms K Armstrong: — perhaps you will stop using petitions of concern to take my vote away.

Mr Kingston: Come on.

Mr Chambers: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr Chambers: Mr Dickson referenced the petitions of concern. Earlier in the debate, Mr Tennyson mentioned my name and suggested — I did not hear the exact wording that he used — that I had received some reward —

Mr Buckley: Yes. Disgraceful. He did.

Mr Chambers: — for signing the petitions of concern. My conscience is not for sale; it cannot be bought. My conscience is not dictated to by an inducement from anyone.

Mr Buckley: Hear, hear.

Mr Tennyson.

Mr Burrows: Some of the remarks that have been made are disappointing.

I go back to the point.

Mr Buckley: Ah.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: Welcome back.

Mr Brett: Does the Member agree that it is absolutely disgraceful for Mr Tennyson to have criticised Mr Chambers, who has been in public office since before Mr Tennyson was even born? Whether you agree politically with Mr Chambers or not, he has given dedicated public service for generations, including during the most difficult times in Northern Ireland. He should be apologised to for that disgraceful remark.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Burrows: I absolutely agree.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you make a ruling on whether it is appropriate for male Members across the way to jeer at female Members as they enter the Chamber, which happened moments ago when we came in?

Mr Kingston: Welcome back.

Mr Givan: Oh, dear.

Mr Frew: It has nothing to do with your sex.

Mr Kingston: Are you going to walk out for a third time?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I confess: I did not hear the remark. I am prepared to ensure that that be referred to the Speaker's Office. I am sure that the office will look very seriously at any record, visual or otherwise, including the Hansard report, of the debate, including all comments that have been made in the background.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. A very serious allegation has been made. I will correct the record for clarity: I did not jeer; I said "Hear, hear" and "Welcome back".

Ms Ennis: Yes, you did.

Ms Sheerin: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Frew: Aw, here we go.

Ms Sheerin: To clarify, the Member who has just spoken and his colleague both winked at me and said "Welcome back".

Mr Givan: No, I did not.

Ms Sheerin: You did.

Mr Frew: Wow.

Mr Kingston: This is ridiculous.

Mr Frew: Discipline those two boys.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, the record that exists, be that the Hansard report, or any audio or video [Interruption.]

Mr Kingston: No winking.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members. Members have asked questions. These are the answers.

The record that exists, be that the Hansard report or the video or audio recording, will not need any correction from any Member.

Mr Givan: Yes, that is right. Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): It will be the record, and that is the basis on which replies will be given to Ms Ennis and Ms Sheerin, who have raised the points of order.

Mr Burrows: It was not challenged — in fact, it was accepted — that the ability to investigate, to confirm guilt, to dispel, to exonerate, to impose bail conditions, and to put bail conditions on two people not to conspire, not to be in contact with each other and not to contact a victim — all the tools that the police rely on to keep victims and the public safe — would be robbed of the police.

Those are not theoretical examples. About 15 years ago, I launched an operation at the Fountain interface. We released the images of young people who were rioting, week after week, throwing petrol bombs, some of which landed through the window of the residents of Alexander House, which is a nursing home. The elderly people stopped reading at their front window. They had to go to the dark back of the nursing home. Someone who is towards the end of their life deserves to be able to sit there on a nice day or a nice evening. I get emotional about this. They could sit out in the sun in their 80s and read a book or listen to the birds sing, but that was disrupted because kids in masks were throwing petrol bombs and bricks. The only thing that we could do to stop it, after we had appealed for weeks for parental responsibility, was to arrest, to put in curfews and to use bail conditions. I could not look one of those residents in the eye and say, "I did not do everything that I could to protect you". I gave them an oath in 2007 that I would do so, and I give them that assurance today in this place. I will do nothing that stops the police protecting those 80-year-olds.

That is the reality. It is about the 13-year-old who cannot be controlled. I do feel sorry for those people. At the end of that operation, when we had dealt with about 200 young people, do you know how many we formally put through the criminal justice system? About three.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will.

Mr Frew: The Member raises a really valid point. The amendment would destroy all the work that the PSNI could do to intervene with young people and their activities. That is why, for example, Jim Gamble, an expert in his field, has come out and commented not only on the subject matter but on the petition of concern process. He stated that MLAs should put their "overriding ethical obligation" to protect children and society above any genuine ethical discomfort about backing the DUP's attempt to block legislation on the age at which criminals can be prosecuted. We should make that point here today.

Mr Burrows: Public protection. Protecting the vulnerable. Supporting those who go astray. Getting the truth. Getting justice. We live in a society where we should be grateful that we have a police service that is remarkably restrained. We have a justice system that is remarkably rehabilitative and puts children in prison only in extremis.

Mrs Middleton: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way to Mrs Middleton, who knows the Fountain very well.

Mrs Middleton: Thank you very much for giving way. I was trying to get in a couple of times to mention the Fountain, but I did not want to interrupt anyone else. Do you agree that, if what we are talking about were changed, that would take away the deterrent that the innocent residents of the care home and of the Fountain deserve to have in place when they are being attacked by children?

Mr Burrows: It would. I was in the community centre in the Fountain that is run by Jeanette Warke MBE, a wonderful lady. After the difficult week that we have had, a really inspiring thing to hear is that children of colour who are in that youth club run up to Jeanette and call her "granny". They are newcomers, and, when they are walking out of that youth club, they have to dodge stones. Even that night, five people attacked the Fountain. People, coming up with golf clubs to attack the Fountain, were arrested. The last children who were arrested there were 11 and 12. What do you want the police to do with them if they cannot even arrest them, if they cannot intervene, if they cannot put them on bail and if they cannot take them home — if they cannot do anything but ask nicely? That is not the way that the world works.

I had a privileged upbringing, apart from the fact that we lived under a very high threat. Where I lived, there was no antisocial behaviour to any great extent. There was no danger in the streets, but some people in parts of Northern Ireland do live in very difficult and dangerous areas. They are the ones who will be most exposed. What if an e-scooter ran over a granny or a child and killed them? The offence would be death by dangerous driving, but that is not on the list. This is not to suggest that a suspect's being a migrant should have anything to do with how we treat them, but let me give you a practical example. Look at the disorder last year in Ballymena and think about this for a moment. There have been suspects who are newcomers in our country and who, like people who are from this country indigenously, have committed extremely serious sexual offences against children, and the police have said, "We can't touch them. They're not even at the age of criminal responsibility". The place would be in flames, and do you know why? It is because the public would say that there is no accountability.

There is a gap that we need to fill. That would be wrong; it would send the wrong signal. Our society is rules-based. It has accountability, and it is there to protect. I look at the Members on that side who represent Derry. You know the problems that we have with interface violence. The problem in the Fountain would be exponentially higher if the police could not intervene. Year after year, at parades, we are able to make arrests, put people under bail — "Don't come out that day, abide by bail conditions, don't have a face covering, don't contact the following victim". All of that, gone.

I come now to "Finally", and then I will sum up briefly. We already have a wonderful youth diversion system. Please do not break it with an ill-thought-out Back-Bench amendment. The system has flexibility and nuance and does not have cliff edges. What difference does it make to someone's ability to get justice, or to be held to justice —.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Burrows: I will in one second. What difference does it make if you are 13 and 300 days or have just turned 14? One day's difference could mean that you could be held responsible for a serious crime and go to prison for years. The day before, you could not even be touched. That does not make sense; it does not make any rational sense whatsoever. We have cliff edge offences.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way. You are going to talk about 10 to nine, but I am not proposing a change of law.

Mrs Long: Ten is also an arbitrary amount and a cliff edge. The Member is effectively arguing for having no minimum age of criminal responsibility and that every child, from birth, should be open to being prosecuted by the courts if they misbehave in public. That is the logical conclusion of what the Member argues. Otherwise, there is no particular reason why 10 should be chosen over 12 or 14.

Mr Burrows: There is.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way, and then I will answer the Justice Minister.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. This is completely pointless, given that you have allowed yourself to be used as a pawn in the DUP's game and used the POC to block this progressive amendment. You have repeated your insult here several times, and I believe that you said something in the media when you effectively said that the likes of me, Ms Mulholland and Mr McGlone were not fit to legislate for people. I remind the Member that all of us have the right to be here, engaging in the process. Advice that is based on the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states that member states should have a minimum age of criminal responsibility of at least 14. You talk about "ill-thought-out" legislation. That is advice from experts in law relating to the protection of children. If you are going to throw around insults, wail away, but consider that the evidence is stacked against you.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for that colourful intervention. Do you see the United Nations? This is what I will say about the United Nations — [Laughter.]

Ms Sheerin: I am sure it is listening.

Mr Burrows: You know what? It is not listening. It writes something on a tablet of stone, but you know what? Do you see the young girl from Creggan who is sexually assaulted? Do you see the family bereaved and the old granny who cannot sit out her front because petrol bombs are raining down? "Ah, but the UN says it's not a crime". Let us live in the real world as it is, not the world as the United Nations wishes it to be. If we wanted to go full hog on all this stuff, we would actually —. There are some people who say that they want to go to 18, so there would be no criminal responsibility until 18. Seriously? [Interruption.]

You are on the Policing Board. [Inaudible.]

Mr Burrows: I am at a loss as to what the Member is saying. Frankly, what the UN says on this matter does not cut it with victims or the lived experience of many people.

We have a youth justice system that is rehabilitative, diversionary, flexible and nuanced, but, suddenly, it would be salami-sliced and shoved into a corner, and the police would not have the flexibility to do their jobs. Yes, we can have rehabilitation and education, but not at the expense of justice, establishing the facts, getting the truth, protecting the vulnerable or saying to a victim that her rights to a prosecution do not matter because of something that the United Nations or the Children's Commissioner say. The Children's Commissioner should represent all children, but he says that no one up to the age of 16 should be brought to account for a criminal offence. What if the victim is under 16? Why do they not even get a choice? How can you ever say to someone in your constituency, "I am victim-led" or "I am victim-focused", when you say, "We know better than you. I'm removing your ability to ask for a prosecution or investigation because I have higher morals than you and I don't think that you are entitled to it"?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member opposite described the UNCRC and some of the amendments being debated as progressive. The Member may be aware of the recent case in Hampshire where two girls aged 14 and 15 were raped in separate incidents by two 14-year-old boys and another boy who was 13. They videoed the rapes. They were not even given custodial sentences. In fact, that was referred to the Attorney General. We have talked about perpetrators and the conditions that perpetrators sometimes find themselves in, but, at the heart of this, there are still victims, and those victims require some level of justice. Some of the crimes that we are considering this evening are appalling, so victims should be in the middle of this, and many of those victims — perhaps not all — will want some level of justice for crimes such as that that I just mentioned. Does the Member agree?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before you continue, Mr Burrows. Point of order, Ms Sheerin.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you. On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to refer to a case in a jurisdiction where the minimum age of criminal responsibility is exactly the same as it currently is in the North and where the minimum age of criminal responsibility had absolutely no relevance to the judiciary when sentencing the individuals? [Interruption.]

Ms Sheerin: It is completely inappropriate for you to raise emotive arguments that are not relevant. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Martin and Ms Sheerin. Ms Sheerin, I think that the Member knows when a point of order descends into an exchange across the Chamber that it bears much more resemblance to an intervention than to a point of order. Let us reflect realistically and perhaps always remind ourselves that points of order should be realistic and related to Standing Orders. I am pretty sure that the matter that you raised is not referenced anywhere in Standing Orders. As we move forward, please use points of order responsibly and let Members continue.

Mr Burrows: I will deal with that very point. Yes, the age of criminal responsibility in England — 10 — is the same. The uproar was because the suspects, despite being arrested, investigated, prosecuted and convicted, did not get a day in prison. That being manifestly unjust caused an uproar. Under this proposal, one of the suspects who aided and abetted the rape could not even be touched. He would not have actually committed a crime.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes, I will.

Ms Sheerin: I, having read the amendments earlier, cannot understand how the Member misquoted that manslaughter was not included. Rape is included as an acceptable offence in the amendment.

This is all a waste of time because they have already deployed their petition of concern, and we are not getting to deliver for children anyway.

Mr Burrows: The Member is quite wrong. Attention to detail when legislating is vital. Rape and attempted rape are included in some of the amendments. Aiding and abetting rape is not. Let us just remember what one of the suspects did to two schoolgirls. They were tied down — [Inaudible.]

Mr Burrows: I am obsessed with talking about victims and why they are seeking justice. You say that I am obsessed with rape. I am obsessed by the fact that people want to legalise it. [Interruption.]

Mrs Long: No, we do not. How dare you.

Mr Burrows: Now, if I can —

Mrs Long: How dare you?

Mr Burrows: Can I make the point? Let me go through the very points, and we will talk about it precisely. The crime of aiding and abetting rape falls outside the amendment. That is a fact, and it is irrefutable.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way.

Ms K Armstrong: I appreciate that you are new to the Assembly

and do not seem to have any idea about how legislation works, but further amendments can be brought at Further Consideration Stage. Mr Frew, the Chair of the Justice Committee, has already said that he is considering amendments. Instead of standing there and not understanding legislation, would you not be better actually reading the stuff and talking to the people who are going to table further amendments? That is how legislation works.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, a couple of points. First, interventions, although normally a Member responding directly to another Member, are still made through the Chair.

It is not the first time that I have said that this evening, so heed it, please, or I will intervene on every occasion when Members do not address the Chair, whether it be the Member who gives way or the Member who makes the intervention. Further to that, the Member who has been given permission to make the intervention should note that, when the Member who gave way rises again, the intervention stops immediately. It is in the gift of the Member who gave way to decide when the intervention stops.

Mr Burrows: When we give a real-life example, which causes the nostalgia of Members to my left to collapse under scrutiny, we get howls of protest and distraction.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: No, I will not give way at the moment.

I will reiterate the point. In the case in England, two schoolgirls were held down and repeatedly raped. That was videoed and shared on social media, The girls were called "slags", and one of the girls said that she wanted to end her life. One of the people convicted of that was convicted of aiding and abetting rape. It is a fact that, if the amendment that is proposed by the Alliance Party and signed by Sinn Féin and the SDLP were to pass, the suspect in circumstances such as those could not even be arrested. That is simply wrong. The victim would have no choice in that. That is not right. That is not the society that we believe in. That is not a society in which you can say, "I value women and girls; what you do is wrong". You could not even take the DNA of the aider and abetter of a gang rape who might commit further offences: their DNA would never be in the system. It is crazy stuff: because you could not prove or disprove the offence, you would not be able to deal with safeguarding issues when it came to vetting. The person might say, "It wasn't me; I didn't do it", but the police would not be able to prove or disprove that.

It is not about a sandpapering of the amendment; it is fundamentally flawed. When I give Members practical examples, they just look me vacantly and say, "Oh, but the UN said —". Well, the UN can get in a plane and fly to Hampshire. It can tell the victim, "Sorry you're not getting justice". It is not acceptable.

Ms Ferguson: Why are you pointing the finger over here?

Mr Burrows: I am pointing the finger at that point [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Chair is over here.

Mr Burrows: Let me sum up the case, which is overwhelming. This is a bad law. It was proposed in the wrong way, through an amateurish amendment written on the back of a fag paper, and it drives a coach and horses through the fundamental premise of a victim-led

justice system. It is an amendment that would completely obliterate the rights of victims, under which, even by its supporters' own statements, those who were victims of the most heinous crimes would not have a choice as to whether the perpetrator could be arrested, charged or brought to justice. It was assumed that the moral high ground occupied by Members to my left was somehow superior to the position of the victim who had been violated —

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: — that they knew better and that the perpetrator's rights trumped the victim's rights.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I established, crucially, that there were two limbs to amendment No 82, that, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, murder and rape were not included in the exceptions for 10- and 11-year-olds and that the police could not even arrest a 10- or 11-year-old who committed murder. In an exact replication of the case of Jamie Bulger, who was abducted, tortured and murdered, there could be no criminal justice outcome.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I am not going to give way to Mr O'Toole.

None: not an arrest, not a DNA sample. You would just say to the parents of the dead baby, "Sorry: nothing we can do here. We will ask social services to have a chat with the children. Get the beanbag out and have a sit down, because the United Nation says, 'It's not really a crime'". That is not going to happen under my watch; I can tell you that.

When it comes to 12- and 13-year-olds, we established clearly and incontrovertibly, despite, again, the shaking of the head, the protestations and the jumping up and down, saying, "On a point of order, Mr Speaker" to throw Mr Burrows off his stride

that inciting murder was not included; conspiracy to murder was not included; aiding and abetting murder was not included; but, somehow, attempted murder was included. Offer me a rationale.

I am afraid that I said that Members need to take stock and that, when they are seeking to change fundamental aspects of law, they should exercise a modicum of care and at least do it through a youth justice Bill, for goodness' sake, and not just scribble something on the back of a fag paper and sneak it through for legislation that —.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The amendments that we are debating this evening went through the normal processes. First, they were considered by the Bill Office for drafting. While they might benefit from being finessed at Further Consideration Stage, they were nevertheless judged by the Speaker to be competent. I would be grateful if the Speaker's Office could reflect on the comments that Mr Burrows has made, because it seems to me that he is questioning not just the contents of the amendments but their competence. The fact that he said that they were:

is a slur not just on Assembly staff but, I would argue, on the Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In light of what the Minister has said, I urge Members to consider their remarks carefully. Members should know the processes through which legislation progresses in the Assembly. I am sure that the Speaker's Office will advise accordingly.

Mr Burrows: Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments may be procedurally competent, but they can still be dangerous law. It is the duty of someone standing in the Chamber as a legislator to point that out.

Diane Abbott, I think, said that the job that we do — I am privileged to do it — is:

Do you know what I have noticed while sitting here today with people who are on good wages and live in a cloistered environment? They want there to be accountability for something that was said that was slightly unsettling, yet they would say to the victim of a serious crime, "Sorry, your feelings don't count". When the feelings of well-paid legislators who live in leafy areas of Northern Ireland are cared about more than those of children and women who have been upskirted, downbloused, sexually assaulted or sexually humiliated, you realise that this place has lost its moral compass.

What is proposed today is shameful: to legalise the most serious crimes and to make law without doing decent due diligence. They have to have it pointed out to them that one type of incomplete offence — attempted murder — was included, while another — conspiracy to commit murder — was not, and then they say, "Well, we can just finesse the amendment at Further Consideration Stage". Finesse it? It is fundamentally flawed. It needs to be ripped up, thrown out and looked at again.

I have dealt with the fact that the amendment is ill advised and based on the world as we want to see it, not the world as it is. I am afraid that it is based on a world in which we read textbooks and listen to academics who have degrees in criminology but no common sense. May those who labour about the —.

Mrs Long: Will you tell us what your degree is in?

Mr Burrows: Yes. I have a degree in law and politics, a master's degree in international criminal justice and a master's degree in human rights law. [Interruption.]

For the absence of doubt — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, this is a debating chamber, not an echo chamber, and the Chair is here.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am modest about my credentials, which

I am a man of modesty. The Minister asked me a straight question, and she got a straight answer. [Interruption.]

I came into politics promising to be straight-talking. They are a BA (Hons), an MSc and an LLM with distinction, but we will move on from that. An aspect of my thesis was on the criminal responsibility of young people, but I will leave that aside for one second. It certainly prepared me for coming in here and listening to the highly experienced legislators who want to pass a law but do not know what it means. Anyway, thank goodness that there are emergency brakes that we can pull in extremis.

I then ran through the cold, hard facts that cut through nostalgia like a hot knife through butter. All the nice words

yet the victims —. There was an admission that the case of Jamie Bulger could not be investigated. There was an admission that serious offences would simply be brushed away. There were desperate attempts to say that the police could detain a nine-year-old. Yes, they could, but they could not criminally investigate them. People asked us to justify why we are not changing the law from the age of 10 to 9, even though they are the ones changing in the law, and it is for them to justify it. They fundamentally failed to do so, and their case collapsed. As it did, they shook their heads, chuntered and got annoyed.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will not give way any more.

I ran through examples in our schools of teachers being upskirted, downbloused, sexually assaulted and receiving rape threats, and I asked whether it was fair that the victim did not get a choice in whether prosecution could be taken, and I got no answer. I consistently asked whether the victim — I know that Members do not want to hear this — got a choice. Does the victim get a say? Does the victim even get consulted? The answer is no.

The state will tell you whether you are entitled to justice, not the young girl who has been assaulted, not the girl who has been cyberflashed or bullied, not the teacher who has been sexually assaulted, not the family of someone who has been run over by an e-scooter and not the residents of Alexander House, when petrol bombs rained down on them. They do not get a say. We are delegating that say to the United Nations because that really works for our victims.

I demonstrated that the investigative capability of the police relies on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Miss McAllister jumped up and said, "Oh no, you can still take samples from the victim". You can take samples from the victim. You can swab the victim for the semen of a suspect, for the blood, for the cuts —.

Miss McAllister: Rape.

Mr Burrows: I have not come to that yet, Miss McAllister, but the suspect cannot have the samples taken unless they consent.

Miss McAllister: Says who?

Mr Burrows: Says the law. There is a lottery because your parents have to consent for you. So, the good parent who says to their child, wee Jonny, "Let the police take a sample that will prove that you raped someone or that you were involved in the aiding and abetting of rape or that you were involved in a joyriding accident that has wiped out a family. Give your sample". Wee Jonny, who is a naive fella, gives his sample, but the parents who are not as responsible say, "Say nothing, son", and the police cannot do a thing. We would reinforce not doing the right thing.

Do we live in a society where a family could be wiped out by a joyrider who is a day short of 14, and the police have to ask nicely for the forensics. They have to say, "Please would you give me your forensics?", "No, I will not." "Oh, thank you very much. The United Nations sends its regards". What sort of law are you trying to pass? What carnage would there be in your constituencies? I can see that the penny has dropped with some of you.

You are laughing. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, there is too much comment from a sedentary position — Mr Burrows, I am on my feet. I do not want to be on my feet. I want people to speak and be heard when they are speaking, and I am sure that the Members who are speaking from a sedentary position would expect similar treatment when they are on their feet. Let us continue, please, and, if anyone wishes to speak, indicate. Do not speak from a seated position.

Mr Burrows: We established beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no ability for the police to establish to any standard who did what. The fundamental premise is to establish the facts. The best that we can hope for is that social services might find out. Really? Will social services investigate the crime, take the samples, get them off to the forensic lab and put the bail conditions on? Those are real-life examples that collide with an ideology that is dangerously foolish. It is informed by people who do not live in the real world in which victims operate, the world that I have seen and the world that many people in this place clearly cannot comprehend.

I ask this to anyone who was going to vote for those amendments tonight: could you genuinely look your constituents in the eye? The Member is nodding her head as if to say that she could look them in the eye and say, "It's right that you, as the victim of a serious sexual assault, will not have a say in bringing the perpetrator to justice". Do you feel comfortable with that?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I always give way to the Justice Minister.

Mrs Long: Does the Member agree that there are current cases, with adult complainants and adult defendants, where the victim has no say because the PPS, and not the victim, determines whether a case will be prosecuted?

Mr Burrows: That is a fundamental misunderstanding. In that circumstance, the decision is based on the evidence of whether the case has been made out, not on whether the victim has any right to have a case investigated. Is the Minister of Justice saying that, in the Department that she oversees, there are members of the PPS who, where there is sufficient evidence of incitement to commit rape, tell a victim, "Sorry. We've got the evidence, but we're not prosecuting"? Is that what you are saying, Minister? If that is what you are saying, there needs to be a public inquiry into your Department. Every time that I —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I always give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: I am glad that we have established that, if nothing else.

First, the PPS is not part of my Department: let us be clear about that. It is good to have identified something else that the Member is not an expert on. Secondly, that was not the point that I made. I am genuinely concerned that all the shouting that Mr Burrows is doing is impairing his hearing, because, every time that I make an intervention and state something clearly, he comes back and misrepresents the point that I made.

Mr Burrows: I have not misrepresented any points. Scrutinise Hansard, investigate and, if I have, let me be brought to justice — something that will be denied to victims of serious crime.

Mrs Long: You cannot be

here: privilege.

Mr Burrows: I am talking about an investigation by the Speaker's Office.

Despite the shaking of the head, the distractions, the denials, the jumping up and down, the points of order, the interventions and all the desperate tactics, we have established that the police would not be able to investigate any crime — even serious crimes — because of the amendments. The victim would have no choice.

I will say that one more time to the good SDLP Members: the victim would not have a choice. It could be a case of sexual assault, of someone losing a limb, of grievous bodily harm, of a migrant’s house being burnt down, of a Glider being destroyed or of a petrol bomb leaving a police officer in intensive care: if the suspect is a day under the age of 14, they cannot even be investigated. I do not think that Members realised that that is what they were about to pass. The suspect would only be asked to give samples. The victim would be told, "It's none of your concern. The United Nations say no". Imagine if your life had been fundamentally affected — if you had to live with first-degree burns or third-degree burns for the rest of your life, or if you had become paraplegic and your family has to look after you — the suspect cannot even be investigated, and you have no voice or say in the matter. No matter how passionately you say, "I want the facts. I mightn't even want them to go to prison for a long time, but I want a court to say that they committed a crime against me, or against my mum or my dad or my daughter", the amendments would mean that that would not happen. Members shake their heads, but that is exactly what they were going to pass.

Thank goodness for the emergency brakes that were negotiated in 1998 because, without them, we were going to disrupt and damage people in this society.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Member for giving way. I suspect that I am one of the "good" SDLP Members that you talked about. [Laughter.]

You have covered a lot of ground. Can you understand that the frustration is not with some of the areas of discussion? It is with how you have abused the institutions and the petition of concern. You have withdrawn all the validity from what you are saying, because you have used the system to disallow the democratic process from happening here today. That is what the great disappointment from the good Member of the SDLP here is, and my colleagues as well. That is where our disappointment lies: in that misuse and the appalling behaviour of voting against democracy.

Mr Burrows: You are all honourable Members, and I pay tribute to the SDLP, as I did in a recent speech. Despite having different views, you were always peaceful and opposed violence, unlike the Members on that side. However, in this case, there was a democratic lever that is legal and on the statute book, and I have used it in extremis. I would rather walk out of this place and never come back than not do what I could. I know that you might enjoy that; that is fine. We do not have to like each other, but I do not abuse anybody in here. I just argue on the facts.

Mrs Long: You do.

Mr Burrows: I do not abuse anybody. If I do, please refer me to the Speaker. I do not. The facts that I provide might not be palatable and might not be what is heard on the beanbags or the —.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I am not going to give way again.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. This was potentially the most catastrophically dangerous piece of law that could ever have been passed. It would have stripped victims of their rights and their voice. It would have empowered perpetrators. It would have denied justice. It would have enabled extreme misogyny. It would have provided immunity for upskirting, downblousing and sexual assault. It would have said to one victim, "If you are the victim of attempted murder, you will get justice" but would have said to another victim — the victim of grievous bodily harm with intent — "You will not get any justice at all". It would look at five people involved in the exact same criminality and say to one of them, "You are facing justice, and you are getting taken to court for attempted murder" but to the other four, for conspiracy, "You are not getting touched".

It would rob the police of their ability to investigate, to gather evidence and forensics, to put people on bail conditions, to do ID parades and to do any of the things that investigate crime, stop disorder and intervene to keep us safe, and in the name of what? In the name of the UN and, "It is progressive". There is nothing progressive about taking the voice of victims.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: There is nothing progressive about giving immunity to people who commit crime. There is nothing progressive about preventing a young person who is facing a serious charge not being able to plead guilty to a lesser offence. There is nothing progressive —.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. You appear to be directing your speech at me. You have referred multiple times to the UN as if it is some hot take and as if the UN does not hold any clout in the world that we all operate in. In 1998, part of what was agreed was a bill of rights for the North, and the advice that we got during the previous mandate — your party blocked it. The same man who facilitated this tonight, Alan Chambers, was part of the Committee and blocked a bill of rights for the North after going through the process. A lot of the advice that we took — other Members were present — was based on the UNCRC to ensure rights for children, so every time that you sneer about the UN and refer to the great job that you have done tonight, you are blocking rights for children, Jon. That is what you have done here. You have allowed yourself to be part of petty politicking from the DUP, and you have blocked rights for children.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Through the Chair, please.

Mr Burrows: In 1998 — the proposed bill of rights — the organisation that your party is connected to was still shooting children in the knees.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, I did not really think that I would have to get to my feet again at this time of night. It appears to be the source of amusement to some, but not all, Members. They seem to be amused that, in a parliamentary debating chamber, you direct your comments through the Chair. Imagine such a thing being a source of amusement. I will ask one more time. I will stop the next person who feels that they cannot do this: remarks, interventions and responses must be made through the Chair.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was addressing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the bill of rights that was proposed in 1998.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): But not through the Chair.

Mr Burrows: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I always respect the role of the Chair.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that also included in the 1998 agreement was the petition of concern?

Mr Burrows: Yes. I will address that in one second.

Let me just go back to the activities of the organisation that is linked to Sinn Féin. While that party was promoting a bill of rights, that organisation was still mutilating children. It was taking them with cudgels up back alleyways and dispensing its own form of justice, I have to say, by shooting children in the knees, robbing banks and preventing people from engaging with the PSNI on allegations of sexual assault and domestic violence. People have come to me and said, "I got permission to report it to you eventually". Who was that permission from? It was from Sinn Féin. I will take no lectures about a bill of rights from a political party

that still says that it was OK to blow people up because it was necessary. I am afraid that your view on justice has contaminated Members on this side, unwittingly, to somehow seek immunity. Perhaps you are familiar with immunity when you seek your on-the-run letters, pardons and all those things.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. Here is the thing: these are important issues. I will address what the Member for Foyle said. She said that I made some very good points but that the petition of concern is the issue. The points that I am making are irrefutable. I will run through all the facts again

because we established that there was legal immunity for murder if you are aged 10 or 11. The parents of Jamie Bulger would not have been able to report the case to the police. The police would not have been able to arrest the suspects or take forensic evidence. We established that the Minister accepted that taking forensic samples was possible only by consent, as though someone would consent to give forensic samples that would implicate them in a rape. [Inaudible.]

Mr Burrows: Every time that I state a fact, I am told that it has been made up.

Mrs Long: Nobody said that it was made up.

Mr Burrows: Then, I repeat the facts and wait for someone to correct me.

Mrs Long: Your conclusion is a matter of political opinion.

Mr Burrows: It is not a matter of political opinion that, under this law, someone could be guilty of aiding and abetting a rape and could not be arrested, investigated or charged. Under this law, in an exact replica of the Jamie Bulger case, the police would not be able to intervene with the suspects. Under this law, they would not be able to seize their clothes and match samples from the crime scene with the offender and the victim. Those are facts, not opinion. It is not opinion that upskirting or downblousing would not be covered by the legislation. It is not opinion that it would impact on the ability of the police to investigate a crime, impose bail conditions, take samples, exonerate someone or prove them guilty. It is not opinion that the amendments do not give the victim a choice: they do not even say that the victim has a right to be heard, let alone the right to make a decision and say, "I want to bring a case against my perpetrator". I have explained jaw-dropping scenarios that run a coach and horses through the idea that a child is not capable of understanding right and wrong.

Let me give you a recap. One of the most extreme examples is that a child could be tried and found guilty of murder because they punched someone who fell over and hit their head on a kerb in a one-punch attack, yet, if they planned carefully, over many months, a serious attack on a victim, burned down their home, went back home, cleared the evidence, got alibis and wiped their phone —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have made repeated attempts to have comments made through the Chair. It is some time since I heard any reference to the Chair. I will reiterate that and draw your attention to Standing Order 17(7), which refers to:

There has been, at the very least — [Interruption.]

Members, I am being serious, and I am being reasonable. There has been, at least, repetition, even on my part in reminding you that remarks have not been made through the Chair, so I ask that you get to the point, stick to the amendments and conduct all of that through the Chair.

Mr Burrows: In conclusion, it is a dangerous law, badly drafted. It obliterates the rights of the victim and puts on a pedestal the rights of the perpetrator. It sacrifices the rights of the victim on the altar of political correctness and nostalgia and for Members who want to see the world as they wish to see it, not the world as it is. The proposals collapsed spectacularly under any scrutiny whatsoever. Things that they said were opinion have now been accepted as fact. Things that they stated as fact have now been proved to be simply mistruths. Those who sit on that side, shaking their head —.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to accuse other Members of the House to have spoken "mistruths" in the Chamber? I certainly know that, under Erskine May, it is not appropriate for somebody to accuse another Member of speaking "mistruths".

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, I admit that I did not hear the comment because I was answering a query to my left and there was another query being answered here on my right. I am sure that you will understand that, as with the previous requests for clarification and guidance, that will be referred to the Speaker's Office.

Mr Burrows: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am drawing to a conclusion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There is another point of order.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following the Justice Minister's point of order, will the Deputy Speaker make a ruling under Standing Order 65, when reviewing Mr Burrows's comments, on whether it was in order for him to accuse parties in the Chamber of wanting to legalise rape and whether those comments were dangerous and misleading? If they are found to be dangerous and misleading, which, I think, they are, will Mr Burrows be asked to retract and clarify those comments?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That is in the hands of Mr Burrows, of course, after I finish giving this reply, which is that, as with the previous points that were raised, that will be referred to the Speaker's Office.

Mr Burrows: We are here to speak hard, cold facts, because we are legislators. Let us take, for example, Mr Carroll's amendment, which is perhaps the most dangerous amendment known to any Parliament anywhere in the British Isles — Mrs Long thinks that that is amusing — to actually say that nobody under the age of 16 is capable of committing an offence; and it says "conclusively" that it shall be proved that nobody under the age of 16 shall be capable of committing an offence. I said that that has the effect of legalising rape. [Interruption.]

It does, because, if you cannot commit an offence, the offence has not been committed.

People can say, "Oh, those are hurty words", but here is the thing: I have been reported to the Speaker; we have had Erskine May; we have had the United Nations. It seems to be that the feelings, sentiment and precise words used by a Member are more capable of being arbitrated and held to account for than horrendous offending by a suspect. Why do we look for that cloistered protection in here, of going to the Speaker about a word that has slightly hurt a Member's feelings?

Mrs Long: It is called standards of parliamentary debate.

Mr Burrows: I will give you standards. I am not answerable to the people in here. I am answerable to the people out there. I do not give a fig.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Burrows: Let me say this. Let me say this: I do not give a fig, frankly, if nearly everybody in the Chamber cannot stand me. I will still ask questions. Frankly, I do not care that I am not liked by some people.

Do you know what my duty is? It is to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland; the people who need us. They will not jump in their nice car to drive home or have a nice pension with a big contribution to it and nice staff. They do not say, "Oh, isn't this a lovely environment to work in? Oh, I get a nice allowance. Oh, look at all these perks". [Interruption.]

We have the audacity in this place — this is where this place needs fundamental change to its culture. We have the audacity to —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows —

Mr Burrows: I am going to —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): — surely, you will accept that you have strayed somewhat off the amendments that are before us in the House tonight. Given my perfectly reasonable request to address the Chair, avoid repetition and a number of other things, I hope that you will accept that I have given you some latitude here.

It is not about showing latitude, however, when you are talking about an entirely different subject, which I think that I have heard before elsewhere. I ask you please to return to the debate and make your contributions through the Chair.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to justify my use of the phrase "legalising rape", because the de facto outworking of Mr Carroll's dangerous amendment and the proposals in Ms Mulholland's amendment No 82 to do with 10- and 11-year-olds is that rape would not be capable of being committed by certain citizens of our country by whom it can be committed now. That is a fact, and it is incontrovertible. I stand by my statement that we would be legalising the aiding and abetting of rape and the incitement of rape, because, were the amendments to go through, it would be taken off the statute book, in which it is currently a crime, and no longer be a crime. That is legalisation. I cannot say it more clearly. I know that the Member is offended by that, but I am more offended at victims not getting justice.

In conclusion — I mean it — I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your generosity and patience, because I am passionate about the issue, if I may return to seriousness. It is bad law that is badly drafted. Thankfully, we have an emergency brake. If we did not, we would be looking at potential chaos on our streets. Migrant workers would be attacked in their homes without consequence. We would be looking at a police service that would be made impotent by not being able to investigate or intervene and at a justice system that would put the rights of perpetrators above the rights of victims. I am glad that I spoke the hard truths. If that has offended some sensitivities or has ruled me out of getting a plush job at the United Nations and if I do — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order.

Mr Burrows: In conclusion, I thank everyone for their forbearance. It has been a passionate debate, and I am glad that, despite the earlier interventions, my voice has been heard. Under my leadership, the Ulster Unionist Party will always stand up for victims, public protection and, yes, a compassionate justice system, but we will never silence victims. We are always on the side of victims.

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Order 65, which is on order in the Assembly, I ask that the Speaker's Office make a ruling on the appropriateness of some comments that have undermined the credibility and ability of our Bill Office, which helps all Members to draft and table amendments. As someone who has a wealth of experience of using the Bill Office, I find it disingenuous, disappointing and insulting that that attitude is being taken in the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have put your point of order on the record. It is not totally dissimilar to one that the Minister raised. I expect that the Speaker's Office will advise on that.

Mr Kingston: That might be a hard act to follow, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The group of amendments on the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland is the most consequential group. The age of criminal responsibility is currently 10, and amendments have been tabled that propose changing that to 12, 14 or even 16. It has even been proposed that we have different minimum ages for different types of offence, which would be problematic. Clearly, there is disagreement on the matter among political parties. Sinn Féin has been doing the hokey-cokey. Its Members do not even seem able to decide whether they want to be in the Chamber, but I see that they are now back for the third time.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. To clarify, I do not want to be here. [Laughter.]

Mr Kingston: Right. OK. [Interruption.]

I think that we can all agree that children who are charged with or convicted of committing crimes should be dealt with differently from adults who commit crimes. That is already the case. That is why we have the Youth Justice Agency, as we recognise that a child does not have the independence of an adult. That is why social services generally become involved and consider whether parental responsibility has been lacking and whether the child and family need additional support or intervention from statutory and voluntary services.

All of those agencies can become involved or are involved already.

The Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill, which the Justice Committee is now considering, sets out the purpose of sentencing. In clause 1(2) of that Bill, those are stated as:

That is a helpful list. I believe that those apply whether the perpetrator is an adult or a child for the purposes of punishment, protection, deterrence, rehabilitation and making reparation.

In her speech — she is not in the Chamber now — Sian Mulholland seemed to imply that, for child offenders, rehabilitation is the most important purpose. I would say that rehabilitation is an important goal for all criminals to turn their lives around and not commit further crimes. However, that does not negate the importance of the other purposes of the justice system: fairness, deterrence, punishment and the protection of the public. I cannot accept the argument, which we have heard in the debate, that children aged 10, 12, 14 or 16 do not know right from wrong.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way and for bringing some calm to the proceedings. The issue is not that rehabilitation matters only for young people — I agree with him on that — but it is that, for young people, it can have a more profound effect. They are in their formative years, and it can prevent a lifetime of offending behaviour. That was the point that Sian was making. Does the Member agree, however, that the other issues, whether accountability or reparations or anything else, can be dealt with in an environment that does not have to be a justice-based environment? We have seen that work well for lower-level offending. We are trying to expand the use of those deterrents and measures that will allow younger children in particular to turn their life around and to desist.

Mr Kingston: I agree with the Minister that rehabilitation is important for young people in order to give them a chance to turn their life around, but so is the message of deterrence for others, including young people, to see that crime has consequences. It has consequences for the victim, but it must have consequences for the perpetrator. The programmes that Sian Mulholland talked about are happening within the current framework, with 10 being the minimum age of criminal responsibility, so it can work.

Those who wish to raise the minimum age would, effectively, be saying that any action of a child up to 12, 14 or 16 cannot be considered to be a crime, even though there would be a victim of that crime. I have been in many situations where young people have been taking part in public disturbances. To say that a child aged 12, 14 or 16 cannot commit a crime would make them more vulnerable to exploitation by those who wish to orchestrate public disturbances or involve them in criminal activities such as drug trafficking.

The Alliance Party Members spoke passionately about rehabilitation projects, as we have discussed. Those are, of course, working within the context of MACR currently being 10. There is already multi-agency working and a holistic approach, but that happens in the context of compulsion and is not just voluntary. The seriousness of the offence is recognised, and that process provides an opportunity for individuals to turn their life around, if they are ready to take it. However, they cannot escape the consequences of their offending.

The Alliance Party argues that 10- to 13-year-olds should not be charged or convicted but then accepts that they can be charged and convicted of certain major offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape or assault by penetration. That position seems to be based on avoiding public outrage rather than on any principle about age.

Alliance Party and Sinn Féin Members have spoken a great deal about the needs of the poor young perpetrator, but have made virtually no mention of the victims of crime.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will give way.

Mrs Long: I ask the Member to reflect on and withdraw what he has just said. It was disingenuous. Sian Mulholland spoke at length about the impact on victims. I do not mind having robust debate, and I do not mind the fact that we disagree on the matter — we clearly do — but to misrepresent Sian's comments on victims is wholly inappropriate. Frankly, I expect better from the Member. He is normally decent and fair.

Mr Kingston: OK. I think that there was a compliment in there somewhere. The majority of the comments have been about helping young people to turn their lives around, but we are talking about circumstances in which there are victims of crime, and we should focus on them first.

At the heart of the debate are questions. At what age is a child responsible for their actions? At what age should their actions not be considered a crime? Should the police have no role in investigating them, even though those actions would otherwise be a crime? At what age are there consequences for committing a crime? At what age should the victim know that they are important and be recognised as a victim of crime? The public messaging and perception are important. I have heard nothing from the proposer of amendment No 79 and those who have spoken in support of it that convinces me that we would gain anything by raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. As I said, we already have the Youth Justice Agency, social services and a multi-agency approach to child offending. I see no advantage in saying that an offence is not a crime just because the offender is 12, 14 or 16. I see no advantage in saying that the Police Service of Northern Ireland cannot be involved; on the contrary, its involvement highlights the seriousness of the matter to the young person and their parents or guardians.

In closing, I return to the observation that we have agreed on during the debate, which is that children should be treated differently in our justice system; that crime should be investigated by the PSNI; and that, if children are identified, they should be referred to the Youth Justice Agency in order for it to take the lead. However, our position in the DUP is that children from the age of 10 are old enough to know right from wrong and that people should not be told that, just because someone is 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 years old, they cannot be convicted of a crime. The victims of those crimes are entitled to receive justice and to know that the matter has not been dismissed by the police or by our justice system.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, you will be aware that the Assembly agreed that the sitting could be extended to 10.30 pm. This seems to be a convenient moment at which to adjourn. I have taken that decision on the basis of the fact that there have been a number of speeches of considerably more than 10 minutes and that, in light of the fact that everyone so far has been given such latitude in their time to speak, it would not be reasonable to cut anyone short. Therefore, the debate will continue tomorrow, and the next Member to speak will be Nuala McAllister.